Forum

<!–noadsense–>

	You must be logged in to post	Login Register

Home Forum Council Taxc issuse An afternoon at Grimsby's Magistrates' Court for Alleged non-payment of Council Tax

An afternoon at Grimsby's Magistrates' Court for Alleged non-payment of Council Tax

Print this Post

Page: 1 2 3 4 5

User

Post

12:15 pm
July 21, 2011

Polystyrene Anchor

Member

posts 100

Print this Post

Post edited 12:26 pm – July 21, 2011 by Polystyrene anchor

This is an accurate account of the events as I experienced them on the 2nd June 2011 as a result of being Summoned to appear at 2pm at Grimsby Magistrates' Court for alleged non-payment of Council Tax.

Some statistics in respect of that day:

3,359 Summonses sent out for court hearings (2nd June 2011)
2,602 Incurring Summons costs of £70

Revenue due to households incurring these costs:

North East Lincolnshire Council £174,334
Her Majesty's Court Service £7,806 (£15,612 per hour)

Despite stating on the Summons document relating to alleged non-payment of council tax that:

"You are hereby summoned to appear on [date] at [time] before the Magistrates sitting at The Magistrate's Court ……"

It was odd to find that council staff were deployed in the court's premises to intervene with the proceedings.

On arriving at the Court's premises I showed to a staff member behind a glass fronted counter my correspondence, which clearly stated that I was summoned to appear before the Magistrates that afternoon. She enquired whether it was for council tax, and instructed me to wait with a dozen or so others, when I agreed that it was. Like myself they had all been instructed to wait for the council's court enforcement manager – a council official with no connections to the court – who would subsequently assemble the accused, then lead them to a room hired by the council, denying their right to a hearing in font of Magistrates because they don't know any better.

I pointed out to the court employee I had been summoned to appear before Magistrates, not council staff, to which she replied it was customary to be met by council staff. Already, alarm bells were ringing; the council pocketing more than half a million of residents cash each year by taking them to court, had already raised my suspicions that this was a scam. Evidence unfolding before me reinforced my opinion that the event was bogus.

I stood my ground expressing my view that a court hearing should be conducted by the court, not the council who brought about the complaint. I was intrigued to know how the council and HMCS had the front to pull off this stunt. Literally 3,359 could have demanded their cases were heard, if, like myself they had taken up the Magistrate's invitation to the 2pm hearing. It was by then obvious that it was the job of council staff to prevent those summoned, having their cases heard by the Magistrates.

Finally another court employee intervened. Despite his attempt to sway my decision he did finish by conceding that I may wait for a hearing before the Magistrate. Had I known there would be almost three hours hanging around, I may have joined the quicker version hosted by the council's court enforcement manager.

My court summons – effectively a pass allowing me the opportunity to see for myself whether the proceedings were bogus – indicated so far that they were.

Firstly the automated summons document sent out to thousands of residents each year originates from the Council rather than the Magistrate's Court. It seems the council's intention is to defraud residents by sending out documents falsely represented by them to have some official character, namely the Magistrates' court.

Secondly the summons has a signature of the Clerk to the Justices somehow doctored on to it with the document stating that the council should be contacted with any queries, and not the Court.

Thirdly there is no requirement for those summoned to actually attend the court, but for those who do attend there is council intervention and a clear indication that it was not intended that anybody should actually appear before the Judge.

I'd passed what I considered to be the first hurdle (so I thought) which was avoiding the council employees' meddling. I naively waited for what I expected would be just minutes until my hearing began. I sat with the dozen or so others, who were following their instructions and still waiting for the council's court enforcement manager to collect them. To my knowledge, I was the only one meeting the requirements of the summons by appearing before the Magistrates.

The court employee who intervened earlier approached me for a further attempt to coerce me into attending what I considered the alternative hearing conducted by the council. His approach relied largely on the fact these court summons could be taken with a pinch of salt enabling the council to take care of the attendees. He clearly had no suspicion that my primary reason for attending the court was to determine whether the event was bogus. Unwittingly, after I asked why it stated: 'You are hereby summoned to appear before the Magistrates…' he enthusiastically stated they did not really originate from the court but in fact were sent out by the council. I anticipated there would be some telltale signs of things not being quite right, but I never imagined the evidence would be handed to me on a plate.

Letting the cat out of the bag still further he effectively told me the summons functioned as bait to lure those disputing liability to be ensnared by the council on arrival at the court. I was growing increasingly aware that the 3,300 or so who had accepted the penalty costs by not attending the court would have equally been fooled by these fake summonses.

Those who didn't realise they were being had were assembled by Staff, and led upstairs to where the council would conduct its sham hearing. The foyer, almost empty now, except for myself and a couple of others became almost silent as one divulged to me familiar horror stories about the council and their bailiffs, Rossendales.

The same court staff member came back for his third attempt to change my mind. Reiterating that I had been summoned to appear before Magistrates, not the council, I added that all the court attendees should be heard by the Judge. He stated that it was unrealistic to expect fifteen minutes of Magistrate's time to be given to each resident who attended court. My response to his gift of incriminating evidence was "then why send out these summonses"? As a Police Constable interrupted our conversation, this was never answered; he was probably sent to hush him from inadvertently revealing that this event was indeed a sham.

I'd been at the court premises for nearly three quarters of an hour and there was no indication that my case would be heard. My new friend the court staff member was back on the scene. I asked him when it was likely the courtroom would be free and why it stated 2pm on the summons. He explained it could be hours and pointed out the merits of the council's sham hearing as those attending were now leaving the court.

I used my time to familiarise myself with the issues I intended to raise in the court room; these I'd prepared and were printed on the reverse side of the summons. I first wanted to express the immorality of the system whereby HMCS and the council team up to profit from the less well off residents, and that anyone involved in this process were not fit to be in the legal profession.

There is case law from Lord Chief Justice Widgery pertaining to the validity of summonses in 'Regina v. Brentford Justices ex parte Catlin', which provides that

"a decision by magistrates whether to issue a summons pursuant to information laid involves the exercise of a judicial function, and is not merely administrative."

I hoped to impress on the Judge that given the number of these summonses running into thousands at a single hearing, and the council sending out their own; the process would, by necessity, be merely administrative and therefore result in very serious instances of maladministration leading to excessive profits for both the Court and council.

I wanted to know why HMCS accepted the council's hike in penalty charges especially when a reduction would have been more realistically warranted as they'd forced more residents into paying these by unifying the existing summons and liability order costs. I'd hoped they could throw some light on why these changes had been agreed behind closed doors with public and press excluded and why a council document listing income generation, revealed this would raise £188,000 for each of the following 4 years when such fees are to cover Council Tax recovery.

I'd liked to of raised my concern about why the council take on the role of the Court and why a proportion of penalty fees collected by the council are paid to Her Majesty's Court Service for the use of their facilities, the intervention of council officials, the council sending out their own summonses, the document stating that Council should be contacted with any queries, not the Court.

I intended to express as many of these points to the Magistrate before being inevitably silenced.

With no sign that the hearing scheduled around two hours earlier would ever happen, I sought the person to complain about the complete lack of organisation and information available. I was handed a leaflet that required any complaint to be in writing and dictating what could and could not be complained about. I was not interested in their procedure but wanted to discuss with someone about the fiasco.

Impressing on them I was not part of their organisation and therefore not interested in their procedure they led me to where the Usher was milling around outside what would be the courtroom for my hearing. I enquired whether the hearing(s) being conducted in that courtroom were for residents disputing their council tax liability. Outrageously not only had my case not been heard but there had been none relating to Council Tax during the two hours or so since the time of the scheduled hearing.

My specific questions to the Usher related to why the summons had been sent out by the council instead of the court and the massive delay between the time of the scheduled and the actual hearing. Unfortunately the Usher could not relate to my actual question about why the document had been sent by the council and reiterated that I had not paid my council tax and this was the reason I had been summoned to appear before the Magistrates. Getting her to explain why council officials where placed at the court premises to intervene with the hearing was going to blow her mind so I concentrated on getting my initial questions answered.

Questioning again why court documents were dealt with and sent out by the council caused the Usher to assume the role of Judge, jury and executioner. She emphasised that if I had paid my Council Tax then I wouldn't have been summoned to the court. Despite informing her I had in fact paid my council tax, I questioned the appropriateness of a court Usher expressing personal views about members of the public attending the court.

During the wasted time spent with the Usher attempting to get answers, my summons document (including the notes I'd prepared for questions) was briefly taken from me for photocopying. At least now any points I failed to get across to the Magistrates in the Court room could be read as they now had a printed copy.

It became clear that it was normal, at least in the case of council tax hearings, to be summoned to appear before the Magistrates at a set time with the actual hearing being several hours later.

Other than querying the number of residents receiving summonses for that day's court hearing, to establish the profit made by the council and the court, I did nothing but sit and wait to be called into the court room.

Now around 4:30pm, two and a half hours after the scheduled hearing, the first person to appear before the Magistrates was called into the court room to dispute his Council Tax liability.

Hardly 10 minutes had lapsed before he reappeared from the court room. Shortly after this I was called in, the second and final person to do so out of a total 3,359 summoned to appear before the Magistrates at 2pm that afternoon for alleged non-payment of either Council Tax or Business Rates.

3:11 pm
July 21, 2011

Crazy Council

Admin

posts 60

Print this Post

Great post

make sure you keep us updated on the outcomes Wink

1:40 pm
July 23, 2011

Polystyrene Anchor

Member

posts 100

Print this Post

Another installment for the hearing at Grimsby Magistrates' Court of 2nd June 2011 for alleged non-payment of Council Tax where Her Majesty's Court Service provided their services for £15,612 per hour.

IN THE COURTROOM

It would be my first time inside a courtroom; I anticipated an intimidating atmosphere with subservient court staff wavering below elevated Magistrates.

To assert myself and send out signals I would not be intimidated and retain some control, I stormed into the courtroom before and without the usher’s guidance. Faced with a deafening silence I had no idea where to sit or stand while those attending, including the Magistrates, fixed their gaze on me.

I realised entering this way had backfired, though I would not allow their regime to gain a psychological advantage, especially given this was part of a state-sanctioned extortion racket.

The usher entered the courtroom and directed me to the Dock to await the Clerk's instructions. This included an explanation of what grounds liability could be disputed. As I had in fact paid all my council tax installments, and on time, these were the grounds I would use to dispute my liability.

Unprompted and before the Magistrate had chance to speak, I aired my first view. This was that the collaboration between the court and council was a scam, immorally profiting from less privileged residents with regards court fees and summons costs. Other than one Magistrate having a mixed look of shock and intrigue there was surprisingly no reaction to this. Unexpectedly I still had the court’s attention and continued to reveal that the summonses were bogus as they were dealt with by councils instead of the court.

The Magistrate interrupted, stating the court and council were independent of each other and not in cahoots. While he was defending the court’s profiteering I asked why the court received payment from the council for the use of their facilities. He signaled to the Royal Coat of Arms and reminded me I was in Her Majesty’s courtroom and should behave accordingly.

I figured the court and council’s share-out of the £182,000 penalty charges supplied by scammed residents would rely on successfully obtaining the bulk liability order with respect to the thousands of council tax accounts, and the hearing having no complications like contempt of court. What other reason would the court be prepared to tolerate my conduct?

Testing my theory that the court was unlikely to find me in contempt of court therefore compromising its winnings, I stated – while still being reprimanded – that the hearing was bogus, this invited another reprimand. The lecture this time concerned talking over the Magistrate. He commented that although I may disagree with the legal process it was not the place to vent ones anger. I sensed the Magistrate also considered the council and courts profiteering this way to be immoral, though I think his sleepless nights wrestling with his conscience would be more than compensated by his six figure salary.

When questioned how I would dispute my liability, I replied that all my payments had been made and well before the due date. It transpired that my word would not be sufficient to convince the court of my innocence and would soon find out they would grant the council its order. This would allow the authority to instruct their appointed bailiffs to enforce a non-existing debt while branding me a liar.

My method of council tax payments was next asked, which was internet banking paid directly into the council’s bank account. The next line of enquiry was naturally why the council had summoned me to court for non-payment. I assumed it to be a vendetta originating from an on-going and long running dispute over the council’s attempt to defraud me through their bailiffs Rossendales.

The Clerk instructed that I be seated while the council’s Court Enforcement Manager produced the necessary evidence that I had defaulted on my council tax payments. The Court Enforcement Manager who I knew normally as arrogant seemed somehow different in the surroundings of the courtroom. The smugness I encountered in a previous meeting where he bragged about his courtroom conquests and his power to ruin people’s lives through bankruptcies and repossessions etc, was not at all apparent.

Now he was polite, subservient, like a timid mouse, addressing the Magistrate as Sir several times, in fact I was close to throwing up.

The council employee’s evidence originated from the same source that triggered the automatic generation of 3,359 summonses that were sent out to households relating to this court hearing. He nervously sifted through the computer printouts that the court apparently accept as conclusive evidence to grant the council liability orders, despite no actual person from either the court or council investigating why the council’s computer software decided to bring about court action.

He found the computer printout relating to my council tax account and carrying his bundle of papers, tiptoed nervously up to one of the Magistrates. Addressing him timidly as sir in his sniveling tone, he pointed out the details relating to my account and declared there were no payments made with respect to the account and the full liability plus the £70 added as a penalty charge was outstanding.

The Magistrate nodded in agreement and the council’s representative scurried nervously back to his seat.

Demonstrating my contempt for this government backed extortion I stated I was quite happy to be seated and continued talking after being ordered to stand by the court. I sensed I was pushing my theory to the limit – that the court was unlikely to find me in contempt of court.

After some nervousness in the courtroom I stood up, fearing I would not have the opportunity to express more of my views about our government’s systematic theft. A brief thank you from the court for my compliance was followed by my announcement – though not quite this polite – that effectively stated I was not here to lick the boots of the Magistrates, but to enquire into and gain knowledge about this corrupt regime. Again this invited another warning from the court.

The Magistrate proceeded to announce the guilty verdict at the same time that I requested how many residents had been summoned in respect of alleged non-payment of council tax for that day’s hearing. My reply was that the court did not have that information, which is odd when you bear in mind that “before a summons or warrant is issued the information must be laid before a magistrate and he must go through the judicial exercise of deciding whether a summons or warrant ought to be issued or not”

His admission that they did not have this information implied there was a very serious case of maladministration which should have the attention of the authorities as this suggested that summonses had been issued without information being laid before the magistrate.

I pointed to the council’s court enforcement manager’s bundle of computer printouts and suggested that the information I requested lay in his hands.

The Magistrate’s reply altered from not having the information to being none of my business. My conduct was being taken more serious now as I was deemed to be offensive when I disagreed with him and argued that it was in everyone’s interest to know the extent to which they are being mugged by the government.

I continued expressing my views despite the warnings and while the Magistrate continued relaying the outcome of the hearing. He spoke increasingly louder, enabling his voice to be heard over mine. He had obviously given up trying to maintain any order and raced towards bringing the hearing to a conclusion, thus bagging its share of the £182,000 penalty charges for its half hour involvement in the scam.

I would not be seen to take the verdict of this bogus hearing seriously, and although not really finding the situation funny I forced myself to laugh when the Magistrate threatened that if I failed to pay my full year’s council tax liability plus the incurred penalty charge before a given date, the account would be handed to bailiffs to enforce payment. His response to this was that I would not be finding the situation so funny when facing a custodial sentence for non-payment. This final comment turned my forced, fake laughter to genuine; there was something about the self importance of this Magistrate and Mickey Mouse court that had me uncontrollably howling in hysterics.

OUTCOME:

Council granted a bulk liability order permitting them to hand over 2,000 cases to their appointed bailiffs to enforce payment.

Court bagged £7,806 for contributing half an hour’s courtroom time.

North East Lincolnshire Council bagged £174,334 in respect of that afternoon’s hearing.

9:20 am
August 20, 2011

Polystyrene Anchor

Member

posts 100

Print this Post

ENTER ROSSENDALES BAILIFFS.

Exactly 11 weeks after North East Lincolnshire Council obtained its 2,000+ Liability Orders from the court, granting them permission to send round the bailiffs, I had my first visit.

Quite surprisingly a real life bailiff bothered to make an actual call. The reason I say surprisingly is because Rossendales or any other bailiff firm working on behalf of councils, don't normally bother putting in an appearance for the two initial (alleged) debtor's home calls.

For those familiar with appointed council bailiff's tricks of the trade, these are termed phantom visits. Those unfamiliar with their tactics would consider this approach to be pointless. However, knowing how they operate will reveal that, although fraudulent, this strategy ensures the maximum potential extortion from the already struggling taxpayer.

This is how it works:

Council's appointed bailiffs are only permitted to lawfully add on an extra £42.50 for their initial two calls to the alleged debtor's home. I suppose if you're a bailiff and don't know or have any regard for the victim involved, this would seem an amount not even worth making the effort to call for. Now, wait a minute, just because they didn't call, it won't stop fees being added to debtors accounts. Although by definition this is fraud, it is miraculously defended or a blind eye turned by councils, local Government Ombudsman and the Police.

This fraudulent gain is only the beginning, in these circumstances the debtor is usually unaware of any added bailiff fees and may be ignorant of this until receiving an un-itemised demand several weeks down the line with typically around £200 added to the account. These fees typically include the initial two phantom visits, an illegal levy fee, often for seizing vehicles not known to the debtor and charging for attending with a van. Failing to itemise these charges serves to gain an advantage for the bailiff by keeping the alleged debtor in the dark, of course this is illegal, but considered standard practice.

So, if I state that this is how Rossendales typically operate, why in this instance did the bailiff personally call? The answer could be that a council employee from the recovery department happened to be accompanying him on this particular visit.

Oh! and one more thing, Rossendale's notice had neither the required itemisation of the fee incurred for the visit nor notice of the fee for any subsequent action. Quite surprising when a council representative was there to supervise. Perhaps a little insensitive about the format of the bailiff's demand notice are the array of images portraying different kinds of credit cards you could pay with (Hope they don't add on charges for this payment) and the mobile phone numbers you can contact the bailiff on…………

12:02 pm
August 20, 2011

Polystyrene Anchor

Member

posts 100

Print this Post

Post edited 12:09 pm – August 20, 2011 by Polystyrene anchor

ROSSENDALE BAILIFF'S VISIT

Unbelievably, after years of conflict with the council over Rossendales and North East Lincolnshire Council's fraudulent activity they had the nerve to appoint these criminals again.

……..Heard buzzer (live in communal dwelling) – a continual and rapid succession of menacing piercing tones emitting from the intercom raised my suspicions that this could be one of Rossendale's thugs. I wanted to convey a brief and concise message, if this in fact was one of these opportunist parasites, but had no intention of letting any Rossendale's Baboons into my property. So, I quickly put on shoes, got keys and went out, locked the door behind me and on the way down passed two guys on the stairs (some other resident must have let them in). They didn't suspect I was the one they had come to harass, so they continued on up to my apartment as I headed down to the communal entrance which another resident had allowed them entry.

I went outside the security door, with the entrance in view, I got out the way for a while, waiting for them to come back outside. When they eventually came out I walked passed them and went back through the security door making sure it was locked behind me (they were stood with clipboard etc outside the door). I quickly went back up the stairs to my flat and momentarily unlocked the door to retrieve the letter which had been delivered by the suspected Rossendales employees. The intimidating 1cm high text on the mass produced computer generated letter, stating "NOTICE OF BAILIFFS ATTENDANCE" verified it was in fact Rossendales. I'd hoped that they would still be around so I could convey that message, I went outside again to take the threatening notice to the council to complain about their use of crooked bailiffs Rossendales.

They were still outside. The one most resembling a Baboon asked, in his most thuggish tone, if I was Mr. Harassed. Without hesitation I verbally attacked him, letting him know my opinion that he was a crook, parasite and whatever else I could think of at that moment. This was all I had intended saying, and had no interest getting into a conversation with him. The other guy was a recovery manager from the council, I had no intention of speaking to either of them and refused to deal with them. The thug effectively called me a coward for refusing to deal with him, this was an obvious tactic to persuade me to allow him access to my property (avoid this at all costs). I did go back to verify that the name on the notice intended to intimidate, was the same as the Baboon who had called. Again he told me to speak to him like a man, face to face, and would not confirm his name. I had no interest in getting into a discussion with him so I continued off to the council offices……..

3:57 pm
August 20, 2011

Polystyrene Anchor

Member

posts 100

Print this Post

AT THE COUNCIL OFFICES

At the council offices the receptionist was evasive and tried to fob me off by saying once the case is with the bailiffs they have nothing more to do with it and it's out of their hands. I fully expected this response – being forced into researching these things had confirmed this was standard practice throughout councils. I sympathised with her and let her know that I realised she had been handed this script by her employers, but regardless of her instructions to deflect aggrieved residents, I wanted to see the person at the council who is responsible for Rossendales.

I got a similar response from the office manager, to whom I explained that the only way I would be leaving the council offices without seeing somebody would be with a Police escort. The manager agreed to listen to my grievance and we entered one of their interview rooms. I fully anticipated her response to my accusations – that the council and council's appointed bailiff's actions regarding council tax recovery was criminal. Her explanation that the council had to collect unpaid council tax was the response and was totally irrelevant to my point. I eventually spoke about their use of crooked bailiffs with the council's recovery manager who had accompanied the Rossendale's bailiff on his visit to my home. Presumably he had anticipated I would now be at the offices and had himself gone there too.

He came into the same room I'd been in expressing my grievance earlier and we began to discuss the council, Rossendales and my alleged outstanding council tax liability. It was quite touching to witness the recovery manager's (presumably fake) loyalty to his Rossendale's bailiffs when defending them after I referred to them as thugs. He also seemed to condemn the highly offensive letter I'd sent to the chief executive after an appallingly abysmal response to a formal complaint about the corruption within the council. Though this was the only time there was any hostility in his voice, as he mainly came across like a slick car salesman, eager to secure his bonus for exceeding his sales target – a complete contrast to the usual arrogant unhelpful attitude one normally encounters with council staff.

It phased me though, that the office manager was still present – sitting in on the interview, seemingly in some capacity as a witness. This seemed a bit suspicious and I queried the reason for her being present and after a brief talk she agreed to leave so we could carry on.

I won't go into everything as the duration must have extended to over an hour. An odd thing though, which surprised me was how much of my correspondence, concerning their recovery process, appeared to have been noted. I say odd because council's responses had always been dismissive. Particularly interesting was how they had concluded from some or other source, my dislike of NTS, the council's court enforcement manager.

Anyway, what he seemed most interested in was whether or not I had paid my council tax, which I said I had, by internet. He then asked if I would provide bank statements to prove it and so they could locate where the funds had gone within the council. I reminded him of the obstruction I had suffered at the hands of the council in the previous two years or so and said I'm not prepared to help the council by supplying proof.

He suggested as an added incentive they would drop the council's penalty charges and also the first bailiff visit fee I had incurred with Rossendales if I supplied details of my bank statement to help them locate where the funds had gone. I asked him if he seriously thought I would be paying either of these fees regardless of whether they agreed to drop them. He shrugged his shoulders and gave the impression that he would suppose not.

I stuck to my guns and said the council would not be getting any assistance in any way and reiterated that they had been nothing but arrogant and unhelpful to me regarding previous complaints about Rossendales fraud attempts.

He asked how I would like to move the situation forward as we had agreed earlier that both the council and myself wanted to see an end to the conflict. To start with I said I would like to see Rossendales and similar bailiff companies' contracts with local authorities for collecting alleged council tax debt to end. Of course this was not and could not be agreed. Secondly I suggested £xxx,xxx,xxx,xxx,999.99 from the council as compensation, similarly this also could not be agreed.

Although there was more discussed I'll leave it at that, except for he reckoned that I would get further bailiff visits and if I don't come up with the goods I was likely to be getting a custodial sentence, especially if I don't provide bank statements. I begged to differ, but anyway things seem to be starting to unfold.

P.S

I got the impression that the recovery manager I spoke with genuinely believed he was doing god's work by using these bent bailiffs.

8:12 pm
September 12, 2011

Polystyrene Anchor

Member

posts 100

Print this Post

North East Licolnshire Council's Stage 1 Formal complaint response FARCE

Original complaint text in blue:

Mr. P. Anchor
xx Xxxx Xxxx Xxxx
North East Lincolnshire
DN00 000

Dear Mr Anchor

I am now in a position to respond to your formal complaint which was given the reference number NEL/11x211/xx.

You state that:

"Despite all my previous formal complaints, accusations of fraud etc, North East Lincolnshire Council have had the arrogance to send round a bailiff from crooked enforcement firm rossendales."

You had the opportunity to avoid your account being passed to rossendales by communicating with the council regarding your Council Tax arrears and either making an arrangement to pay or provide evidence that you had paid. As you had not done so the council has no option but to pass the account to Rossendales Ltd.

"What is more surprising is that the council's Income & Collection Manager, Xxxx Xxxxxx, was present on the bailiff's visit."

Any manager within the council's Income and Payments service can attend a property with a bailiff for quality monitoring purposes. Any member of staff within the Debt Recovery Team can attend a property with a bailiff for training purposes.

”I say surprisingly, because all although the bailiff actually called, (fees typically incurred without an actual visit), the paperwork was not in order.

Rossendale's bailiff, Barry Holroyd, did not on the date of the visit (18/08/11) appear on the certificated bailiff register."

Entry on to the register itself is the courts responsibility, however Mr Holroyd has been a certificated bailiff for approximately ten years, I have had sight of Mr Holroyds bailiff's certificate, however if you wish to confirm this yourself you can access the "certificated bailiff register" http://www.certificatedbailiff…..ice.gov.uk where Mr Holroyd's most recent certificate is in fact registered with the following details:

Name Barry Holroyd
Court Burnley Combined Court Centre – Certificate Granted 21/07/2011
Certificate expires 20/07/2013 – Employer Rossendales Ltd

"The mass produced computer generated letter consisting of a single A4 sheet (copy enclosed), does not conform to the "National Standard for Enforcement Agents" which I believe the council claim "they are governed by."

Quote:

“National Standards for Enforcement Agents

Information and confidentiality

Enforcement agents will on each and every occasion when a visit is made to a debtor’s property which incurs a fee for the debtor, leave a notice detailing the fees charged to date, including the one for that visit, and the fees which will be incurred if further action becomes necessary. If a written request is made an itemised account of fees will be provided.”

You will see from the enclosed notice that there is no detailing of fees for that visit, nor is there anything detailing the fees which will be incurred if further action becomes necessary.”

Rossendales do work closely with the National Standards for Enforcement Agents particularly with regards to dealing with tax payers in vulnerable situations; however I would ask you to note these are guidelines and not regulations.

It is appropriate not to detail fees at this stage which may be incurred, as Rossendales Ltd would not know at this stage what further action would be required in order to collect the account. To do so would leave Rossendales Ltd open to much criticism particularly from agencies that would see this as adding predictive costs and attempting to obtain fees which have not been incurred.

It is Rossendales practice to detail fees incurred and leave a copy of a Schedule 5 notice of the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) regulations 1992 (and amendments thereof) which details all charges connected with distress along with a request to pay by instalments form, on the final visit by our first call bailiff.

"I consider it insensitive and irresponsible of the council in subjecting the already struggling debtor to these intimidating notices – displaying an array of credit card images – implying the debtor is expected to sink further into the mire to satisfy the council's demands, and fund the parasites.”

All customers can avoid their accounts being passed to Rossendales Ltd by contacting the council as they are encouraged to do at various stages of recovery prior to Bailiff action.

I find it reasonable that Rossendales Ltd include information to say they accept payments by debit and credit cards. It is the responsiblity of the customer to make the decision regarding an appropriate method of payment.

"You might want to think about the options available to the alleged debtor in contacting the bailiff. Calls to mobile telephones are not going to help struggling council taxpayer's finances.

A successful outcome to this complaint would be to see an end to the council employing Rossendales as their appointed bailiffs and a more responsible approach to dealing with these issues.

For your information, a copy of Rossendale’s threatening letter and a similar letter to this will be sent to the Police.”

I find it reasonable to include the bailiff's telephone number on paperwork left by a bailiff, as by contacting a bailiff, further action can in some circumstances be avoided. Whilst the telephone number for a bailiff is a mobile one and you complain about the cost of this, you make no reference to the telephone number of Rossendales Ltd office telephone number which is also printed on notices, where calls are charged at a local rate.

I note that you make no mention of the amount of time spent with Mr Xxxxx in our customer access point, which was in addition to the visit. Mr Xxxxx was trying to work with you and you agreed with some of his comments. You have stated on a number of occasions that you have paid your council tax, Mr Xxxxx asked if you would provide the information to assist us in finding those payments as they are not showing on your account, your response to this is no you won't help us. This response was also given previously when you were asked for the information yet you remain inflexible and the result is the situation you now find yourself in, the magistrates' court granted the liability order and you continue to refuse to provide evidence of payment.

After giving full consideration your complaint is not upheld.

Your account will remain with Rossendales Ltd. To allow you time to contact them regarding payment or send evidence to the council showing proof of payment, they will not resume action until 20.09.2011.

Should you feel that your complaint has not been dealt with to your satisfaction you can request that it be escalated to stage 2 of the councils' complaint procedure by contacting the Feedback Officer, Civic Offices, Knoll Street, Cleethorpes DN35 8LN, or via the councils website at http://www.nelincs.gov.uk

Yours faithfully

Debt Recovery Manager

8:53 am
September 14, 2011

Crazy Council

Admin

posts 60

Print this Post

Hi niel,,, You have raised some good points here, deffinatyly escilate it to stage 2 then 3.

The manager came with the baillif, NEVER HEARD OF THAT HAPPENING BEFORE. FOI request in the making or what.

You
will see from the enclosed notice that there is no detailing of fees for
that visit, nor is there anything detailing the fees which will be
incurred if further action becomes necessary.”

Rossendales do work closely with
the National Standards for Enforcement Agents particularly with regards
to dealing with tax payers in vulnerable situations; however I would ask
you to note these are guidelines and not regulations.

It is appropriate not to detail fees at this stage which may be incurred

Speculative invoicing. My understanding is they are required to detail the costs and charges at every stage.

All customers can avoid their accounts
being passed to Rossendales Ltd by contacting the council as they are
encouraged to do at various stages of recovery prior to Bailiff action.

The council ( collection team ) are legal equired to check every acounts accuracy before processing to thisa stage. Thats clearly not done, as you have exposed by the number of Liability orders granted for under £ 100 every year, that without the 1000 acounts withdrawn after LOs and the other mistaken accounts that they dont withdraw.

Cool

12:24 pm
September 14, 2011

Polystyrene Anchor

Member

posts 100

Print this Post

Post edited 1:01 pm – September 14, 2011 by Polystyrene anchor

Crazy Council,

Hi, Thanks for the helpful information, I certainly will be continuing with the complaints process.

I can tell you with almost 100% certainty that the council's manager was in attendance because I caused a headache for them previously with regards a grievance I had about the council and Rossendale's attempts to defraud me while enforcing alleged non-payment of council tax.

In all there were six counts of attempted fraud, the detail I won't go into now, but two of the fraud attempts involved phantom visits by Rossendale's bailiffs, i.e, they charged me two lots of fees for visits to my home where there was no proof that these visits took place.

The council, in a previous response, decided not to uphold it and I have created headaches for them because of this, and other issues, since. The council manager accompanied the bailiff to avoid further sagas, as they were clearly aware I was clued up on how these actions should be carried out.

Interestingly what occurred to me was the council's naivety regarding their statement about the National Standard for Enforcement Agents. Like you say "they are required to detail the costs and charges at every stage", but the council defended themselves and Rossendales by stating that "these are guidelines and not regulations

Notice how it suits the council to deem the National Standards for Enforcement Agents to be only guidelines in this instance, though when they're promoting how reputable they are in the media they exploit the fact that "they are governed by the National Standard for Enforcement Agents". They have completely discredited themselves with their response and I truly believe this has paved the way to highlighting the corrupt way our council deals with these complaints and operates in general.

Some examples of how North East Lincolnshire council have discredited themselves over these media announcements and formal complaint responses:

Take a look at this Grimsby telegraph article:

Over 2,000 fewer people caught dodging council tax in past year

Tuesday, January 04, 2011

"On the appointment of bailiffs, the spokesman for North East Lincolnshire Council said: “Rossendales are the appointed bailiffs for North East Lincolnshire Council for the collection of unpaid council tax.

They are governed by the National Standard for Enforcement Agents. The council does not pay for Rossendales’ service, but a service agreement is in place and, as such, the company is accountable to the council. The council only passes on debts to Rossendales as a very last resort. Customers who are behind on their council tax payments are encouraged to contact the council for assistance."

Notice they are defending their reputation by exploiting that they are governed by the National Standard for Enforcement Agents. And,

It is complete bxxxks that they only pass debts to Rossendales as a very last resort if this is anything to go by:

8.3.3 Bailiff recovery rate is as low as 30%, and bailiff action is not usually the most effective in individual cases. Where possible, the council should start with another form of recovery, such as an AEO. However, as one authority had over 63,000 liability orders in one year (CIPFA statistics) they must use bailiffs extensively as the volume is too high to look at each case in enough detail and take other, more time consuming or expensive actions for all these cases. Council staff have also suggested using AEOs would be better if they were allowed access to Inland Revenue (IR) records (see section 3.5.3.3).

AND

From Council's reply to stage 1 formal complaint regarding Rossendale's fraud attempts.

19 August 2009

"I can advise you that Rossendale's fees are set by statute and that they are governed by National Standard for Enforcement Agents. From the information you have provided I can not uphold your complaint as Rossendales have acted within government guidelines and followed legislation correctly when setting fees."

Again they are using as their defence that they are governed by the National Standard for Enforcement Agents.

AND

From Council's reply to stage 2 formal complaint regarding Rossendale's fraud attempts. (NTS)

2 November 2009

"You state in your letter that the Levy of distress was not left and as such this was not completed in line with the national standards of enforcement agents.

I am able to uphold this part of your complaint as the above documentation should have been left to give a breakdown of the costs incurred and the inventory which the bailiff had levied upon. It clearly states in the National Standards for Enforcement Agents; 'Enforcement agents, for the purpose of distress or execution shall, without the use of unlawful force, gain access to the goods. The enforcement agent will produce an inventory of the goods seized and leave it with the debtor, or at the premises, with any other documents that are required by regulations or statute.'

This is completely out of character with the council, they must have been forced into a corner to uphold this part of my complaint. Anyway, the point is it suited the council to use the National Standard for Enforcement Agents as a way of passing the blame onto Rossendales.

5:46 pm
September 15, 2011

Polystyrene Anchor

Member

posts 100

Print this Post

Post edited 7:05 pm – September 15, 2011 by Polystyrene anchor

AT THE MUNICIPAL OFFICES TO ADDRESS COUNCIL CORRUPTION

I found out, or rather confirmed on Monday that our council bosses, elected or otherwise are spineless miscreants, locked away from the outside world in their bastions, grasping their taxpayer funded six figure salaries, seemingly unaware that they work for North East Lincs residents and not for their own ends.

Safe in their fortress they’re deemed far too important to be bothered with the riffraff who make possible their obscene remunerations. Probably, the reason they’re allowed such privilege is down to not having a conscience while implementing oppressive government regimes. Neither do they have the balls to deal face to face with those suffering because of their actions.

So, as I mentioned earlier, I tried to confront those gutless degenerates on Monday morning. The bullsh1t response to a formal complaint (posted earlier) was the last straw. They had got away with their cover-ups and denials for long enough as far as I was concerned – they clearly no longer had any credibility.

Anyway, to summarise the events I asked the receptionist if I could see the person wielding the most power in the building.

Observing those working in front line offices can be an intuitive way of gauging the extent employees are controlled by fear; the risk of being fired for stepping too far out of line is the biggest threat an organisation holds over employees. By witnessing them, I got an insight into the level of importance their bosses put on themselves, and how they are perceived to have God like status by those in their employ.

It would be interesting to see how these ego inflated cowards would go about intimidating those not giving a sh1t about their jobs and consequently having no fear of losing them. I'd wager their conceit would diminish drastically upon an onslaught from such individuals. This must be why they hide from the public; after all they can't control them with fear that goes with threats of the sack. They only have power, and their illusion of respect in their own tiny insignificant world. It's best then I suppose, that they keep security, and their front line office staff, between themselves and the public.

Back to the events:

The receptionist began reciting her standard script, handed to her by the very people I had come to confront. As anticipated, I was effectively informed they are far too important to give up time for members of the public, especially with those having no appointment. I persisted until I was referred to the senior customer service manager. It has to be remembered even reaching these dizzy heights is not achievable by many wanting to air their grievances.

I was lied to by the customer service manager who stated she was "THAT" person with the most authority in the building. I didn't believe her, and besides, the message I had for the council regarding their systematic corruption would in no way have had any impact with her. The conversation changed tack and she now stated it was not possible to just turn up and expect to see a director. This, I thought, was an outrageous double standard. I'd gone to the council offices to confront the Authority about issues surrounding their bailiffs attending my home on the pretext of collecting a debt that didn't even exist, and I'm being told that I could not just turn up and expect those responsible for implementing these primitive enforcement methods to see me. When was the entire British public brainwashed into accepting this bullsh1t.

I explained It was not necessarily a director I wanted to see, one of those or an elected member would equally suffice, as long as whoever it was held the highest corporate position. Her response was that she didn't know which chiefs were in the offices at any time as they just come and go, effectively saying they are unaccountable. Did she not realise she was giving me ammunition? I suggested it was not wise informing me that these council bosses were a law unto themselves, especially as their wages and pensions are funded by the council taxpayer. On second thoughts I should think in their arrogance they would relish the fact that the public know how they're being screwed over.

The customer service manager obviously wasn't the person I should be dealing with if she had no idea who was in the building.

I needed to resort to "Plan B" which I hoped would convey a more insistent tone. That I wouldn't be leaving before I'd seen someone or I was turfed out by the Police. She went away, supposedly to enquire into which if any of the high-and-mighty were in the building. Around 20 minutes later she returned with a message that some legal secretary or other had enquired into the possibility of a meeting with three of the most senior officers in the building. The message was they had nothing to discuss with me and she was to call the Police if I wasn't happy with that. As I mentioned earlier, these were the people responsible for fraudulent methods of council tax enforcement who were threatening to call the Police. The same ones who spout in the press about benefit fraud and similar, who in fact are the guiltiest of all fraudsters and make benefit fraud look like a p1ss in the park.

Consequently I asked her to return my message "that I would not accept their response". She refused, we argued until I said she had better call the Police. She then warned if I was still there in some undetermined time in the future, she would call the Police. This, I told her would not show the council in a very good light, then I remembered that in their arrogance they wouldn't give a toss what the public thinks. I attempted to find their offices regardless, neither her nor the security guy made any attempt to stop me. She just followed me and said all access points to their offices were locked for security and I would not be able to get at these degenerates. (Oh! just in case any of you are reading this, the customer service manager didn't actually use the term 'degenerate')

The customer service manager – who, as far as I was aware could have been making this up as she went along – informed me that the undetermined time in the future when she would contact the Police was in fact the council office's closing time, 5:00pm. Sensing I had been stitched-up, I became irate with her and suggested she either return the message to those who she had allegedly spoken to earlier or get on with calling the Police. All evidence pointed to this being a charade, and the customer service manager probably not even having the balls to disturb those sat high and mightily in their towers.

As I became more and more irate, and in my opinion, offensive, she revealed yet another condition to her now, dubious instructions; she could not call the Police unless I was causing a problem. I genuinely considered my behaviour would constitute being a problem. I wonder what one can get away with these days before behaviour is deemed unacceptable in a public place?

I asked "don't you consider me to be causing a problem for you"? "Do people normally speak to you like this"? She replied, "No and Yes, on a daily basis, from around 8 till 5". I suggested this was down to her spineless bosses not having the balls to deal with the disorder they create and have no shame in allowing their front line office staff take all the flack, to which she replied it's her job, she has to work.

I wondered if I was being stitched-up to such an extent that they were trying to provoke me into doing something criminal. Fortunately I didn't, and I'm glad if that was what they were after, I didn't play into their hands.

It was obvious hanging around the council offices for 5 or so hours was not an option, so ok, there was no choice, I had to leave and the local authority got their own way as usual. It just left me to say that these arrogant miscreants seemingly magical powers of impunity will one day wear off, and I hope I'm around to see it when it does.

10:00 am
September 17, 2011

Polystyrene Anchor

Member

posts 100

Print this Post

Post edited 10:08 am – September 17, 2011 by Polystyrene anchor

COUNCIL REPORT INCIDENT TO POLICE

Letter sent by council after Fraud and corruption allegations where directed at council bosses who had not the cojones to speak to me face to face.

FROM:

Municipal Offices

Town Hall Square, Grimsby

North East lincolnshire

DN31 1 HU

16th September 2011

Dear Mr Anchor,

Re: Your Behaviour and Actions Towards Officers of the Council

On Monday 12 September 2011 you visited the customer access point In the Municipal Offices of the council in Town Hall Square, Grimsby.

The purpose of your visit was, it seems, to demand an appointment to see either the Leader of the Council or the Chief Executive.

It was not possible for an appointment to be arranged with an officer as requested by you. When the customer services officer informed you of this, you behaved in an aggressive and confrontational manner. At one point you placed your face extremely close up in the face of the officer whilst continuing to rant. You also stormed through into the waiting area and towards a staff door shouting and demanding to know where other officers were.

Such behaviour was likely to cause alarm and distress to council officers and also undermined the security and privacy of the public customer waiting area.

Later that evening (20:52) you sent an email communication to officers and members of the council containing indecent and offensive language. It does seem that such communication was designed to provoke a reaction because, when no reply was received by you, you sent a further email on 13th September 2011 which was headed "Spineless S__m".

In light of these incidents we have decided to report this to the Police. However the purpose of this letter is to strongly advise you, regardless of any action the Police may or may not take, that we do reserve the right to take legal action against you for this.

It may be appropriate to take an Anti Social Behaviour Order against you prohibiting you from behaving in this manner, in particular in respect of your actions towards council staff, whether by attending council premises or by way of electronic communication.

We also reserve the right to prosecute you for these incidents and we shall take legal action against you if there are any repeats of these incidents at all. Please therefore treat this letter as a warning to you that the council will not tolerate this behaviour towards its officers or members.

Such legal action may be taken against you without further notice being given to you, if there any such repeats. Your contact with the council must be polite and courteous at all times.

Yours Faithfully

Xxxxx Xxxxxx

For the Strategic Director Governance and Transformation

5:45 pm
September 17, 2011

Polystyrene Anchor

Member

posts 100

Print this Post

Post edited 5:50 pm – September 17, 2011 by Polystyrene anchor

COUNCIL REPORT INCIDENT TO POLICE – RESPONSE

TO:

North East Lincolnshire Council

Municipal Offices

Town Hall Square

Grimsby

17/09/11

Dear Mr Xxxxx

Re: Your Behaviour and Actions Towards Officers of the Council

Spineless it seems, is the appropriate terminology to describe the high-and-mighty who occupy the Grimsby Municiple office towers. Again they have shown their true colours and delegated their dirty work to somebody else.

As you've been designated the job of intimidating me, I will ask that you forward details of this response to the leader and chief executive of the council.

Firstly, I see the irony in all of this as the authority has failed to indoctrinate into me the belief that their fascist actions are normal or acceptable.

Look at it from my perspective, the authority have allegedly reported this incident to the Police.

I have been reported to the Police because after turning up on their doorstep I dared to demand an appointment with council bosses regarding their fraud and corruption. Now, obviously they didn't like this and considered themselves far too important to attend matters arising with the riffraff outside their towers.

The irony of it all was that I intended to force them into facing fraud issues, originating from their action which allowed the council's appointed bailiff Rossendales, to turn up on my doorstep and demand payment for a debt that doesn't exist.

Secondly, the council are already walking on thin ice with issues surrounding illegal court action and their crooked council tax enforcement agents. The reason I've not brought about a private prosecution is because the cost is too prohibitive. The council, however, has unlimited resources and would welcome that they bring about legal proceedings so as to expose the scandal that the council, until now, have managed to cover up.

So, your threats to take legal action or prosecute me I hope are not hollow.

Thirdly, if the council expect the Police to take action, I hope they have put aside plenty to fill the brown paper bag, because otherwise they will want evidence – recording, video etc.

Besides, if such evidence exists it would unquestionably go in my favour, because the manager I was ranting at, as you put it, stated I was not causing a problem which is why she didn't call the Police. She stated additionally that this scenario was normal and was a daily occurrence. The security guard, who was stood only feet away neither did nor said anything.

If the authority has in fact reported this incident to the Police, the real reason would be because of the bruised egos of the recipients of the emails sent on the evening of 12th (20:52) and that of the 13th.

Lastly, I have been taken to court for council tax debt I don't have, been branded a liar by the Magistrates, been exposed to the council's bailiffs for a debt that doesn't exist, encountered threats, lies, attempted fraud, corruption and obstruction at the hands of North East Lincolnshire council, and I feel it is unreasonable, in a democratic society, that a citizen should have to deal with an organisation operating this way.

For this reason I request that starting from next year, the council remove my account from their Council Tax administration and find an alternative way for my council tax payment to be received.

P.S

I will be contacting the Police myself regarding this incident.

Yours sincerely

P. Anchor.

10:57 am
September 19, 2011

Polystyrene Anchor

Member

posts 100

Print this Post

Post edited 11:03 am – September 19, 2011 by Polystyrene anchor

COUNCIL REPORT INCIDENT TO POLICE – RESPONSE 2

TO:

North East Lincolnshire Council

Municipal Offices

Town Hall Square, Grimsby

DN31 1 HU

19/09/11

Strategic Director Governance and Transformation

Dear Mr Xxxxx

Re: Your Behaviour and Actions Towards Officers of the Council

Studying more closely your correspondence of September 16, it appears you have crafted the letter for the purpose of intimidation, albeit disguised as threats to prosecute, as would a dodgy Lawyer or Solicitor in circumstances where this action is all they have available to them.

After all, it's not likely an organisation – whose bosses benefit at the expense of others and ruin people's lives – would want to risk exposing this because of some legal action about defamation of character.

I have already made my views clear to the chief executive about the corrupt and criminal way his organisation operates. I have previously tried to arrange a meeting with him in order to discuss this but he declined. I have also emphasised to him that he must have sufficient grounds to begin legal action against me for defamation of character, slander or whatever, but understandably he has not responded.

This brings me to another point Mr Xxxx. You seem quite comfortable sat in your safe little office writing letters alluding to legal action; I wonder if you would have the balls to convey your warnings face to face. You arrange a time that fits in with your busy schedule and I'll give you the opportunity, you can't say fairer than that.

I have concerns that all this talk with no action is not going to allow me the opportunity to expose the systematic fraud that the council is responsible for. Unfortunately I don't have permission to dip my hands into the public purse as has been granted the council, so at the risk I've not given the high-and-mighty enough grounds to use some of those funds on a prosecution, I'll give you some more to go on.

I'll make no secret that I have nothing but contempt for these corporate climbers who benefit substantially at the expense of the public and to a greater extent those who are less well off.

With the ability to sleep at night while others suffer from their actions, they are too spineless to highlight failings within their administration and carry on doing the government's dirty work in exchange for their immoral six figure salaries. They absolve themselves of guilt by convincing themselves, as do all their counterparts in other authorities, that they are doing what's good for the community when in fact the governing factor is that they just like the rewards that go with looting from their fellow man.

So I think we can establish that, as the saying goes, I would not relieve myself on them if they were on fire, that is of course, unless I had glugged down lashings of 95 RON the night before.

So all I have to bring to your attention now is the small matter of the council's thugs. I have been informed they will resume action on 20 September. Does this mean that I will be seeing them again tomorrow? Or, have the council hired them out to their fellow degenerates, Basildon District Council, to aid the Dale Farm eviction?

I'll just say that to be fair to the bailiffs, I think the council should warn any Rossendales thug turning up on my doorstep, that if there is a Mrs thug at home benefiting from his immoral income, she should prepare something for his evening meal that can be easily passed through a straw.

Yours sincerely

P. Anchor.

11:01 pm
September 24, 2011

Polystyrene Anchor

Member

posts 100

Print this Post

Post edited 10:29 am – September 25, 2011 by Polystyrene anchor

STAGE 2 OF THE COUNCIL'S FORMAL COMPLAINT PROCEDURE

North East Lincolnshire Council

Finance Department

Civic Offices Knoll Street

Cleethorpes

North East Lincolnshire

24/09/11

Your Ref: NEL/11xx11 /x2

Dear X Xxxxx

Re: Council tax Ref: xxxxxxxxxx – Formal Complaint NEL/11xx11 /x2

Regrettably I’m asking that you progress my complaint to stage two. The approach taken in conducting your response is completely unacceptable. You have demonstrated without any doubt that your interest lies only in processing these complaints and determining them “unfounded”. I can only presume that reputation and targets are at the heart of what determines council’s policy to deny the validity of almost every complaint.

The evidence of this has been apparent in two previous complaints. You have completely discredited yourself with this and previous responses and in doing so you have in my opinion paved the way to highlight the corruption in the council’s handling of these complaints and the way the local authority operates in general.

I will be bringing this to the attention of the government. I also have evidence that the council do not accurately record the outcomes of these complaints; this too will be brought to the attention of the government and reported to the Local Government Ombudsman.

The new evidence enables one to piece together why council’s court enforcement manager, Xxxx Xxxx, tried to convince me that a written report would not be necessary as he had given an account of his findings to me verbally.

It was obviously in his mind not to record the complaint, no doubt because he was forced into a corner and was left no option but to uphold aspects of the complaint which if reported would attract criticism from the LGO and action in the Magistrates’ court.

Your stage 1 response

1. Account being passed to bailiffs

I’m expected to cooperate with the council for some unfathomable reason. Why on earth would I want to help an authority which continues to use as its enforcement agents, a company which has no effective way of regulating the criminal element of their individual bailiffs.

Do you not have even the slightest understanding why, after being subjected to council fraud to which the authorities turned a blind eye, I would not take pleasure in refusing to assist the council locating my payments, especially when the billing authority have not only taken my payments, but done so in accordance with Part 5 and Schedule1 of the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations.

You imply that a good reason for my cooperation would be to avoid bailiff action. Why would this prompt me into assisting the council when I’m aware I have no legal obligation to deal with these opportunists? I can therefore think of no reason why having my account passed to your bailiffs would be any real inconvenience to me.

Furthermore there is no risk of any financial loss, not only because the council passed the case to the bailiffs in error, but also because all enforcement fees and charges are in law the councils, both those that are prescribed in the legislation and those that are simply stated as being "reasonable".

Your appointed bailiffs are entitled to the council’s enforcement fees and charges only because part of your contractual arrangement with the bailiff company details the fact that you allow them to retain them. I therefore have no obligation to pay such fees to the bailiff company regardless of whether or not the council passed the case to the them in error.

However, what does outrage me is not my account being passed to bailiffs, but specifically rossendales’ bailiffs, the same enforcement company responsible for attempting to defraud me on so many previous occasions. I will emphasise the point now in the hope you take some appropriate action and also so you can’t say I didn’t warn you that North East Lincolnshire Council has been informed about rossendales’ involvement in criminal activity.

For the purpose of reinforcing reasons why I should not assist the council, I will provide here, one or two,’just’ examples:

i) Complete lack of cooperation from the council

ii) Threats from the council including this:

“…….Your scatter gun approach of sending the same request to numerous officers and councillors is taking up a disproportionate amount of officer time and is, unfairly for the other citizens of N.E.Lincolnshire, diverting resource from the provision of the services we provide. Should you continue with this approach I will have no option but to ask that staff across the council do not respond to any further requests regarding this issue…….”

iii) Inability to properly address issues raised and a make a fair, unbiased assessment.

iv) Incapable of admitting fault, resulting in me being permanently in dispute with the council.

2. The council's Income & Collection Manager

I am convinced the council's Income & Collection Manager was in attendance because of my previous complaint which included, among other issues, accusations of fraud attempts involving phantom visits by Rossendale's bailiffs. More specifically they fraudulently tried to charge me two lots of fees for visits to my home where there was no proof that these visits took place which incidentally the council did not uphold.

I don’t think it can be credibly argued that the council’s income & collection manager accompanied the bailiff for any other reason than to make sure he actually made the visit to avoid further reputation risk and/or possible legal challenge, especially as he clearly knows I’m fully “bailiff scam” aware.

In your response you state “any manager within the council's Income and Payments service can attend a property with a bailiff for quality monitoring purposes”. This not only suggests that the councils appointed bailiffs are not to be trusted, but also opposes claims by local authorities that because bailiff companies collect fees direct from the debtor the cost to the council is nil. Having managers within the council’s Income and Payments service monitoring their bailiffs out in the field, in my opinion does not come at nil cost to the council.

3. National Standards for Enforcement Agents

It is here that the council has completely discredited itself with its response regarding the National Standards for Enforcement Agents, particularly that which states “these are guidelines and not regulations”.

Not only does it suit the council when defending itself, to deem the National Standards for Enforcement Agents as “only guidelines”, I’ve also observed how, when promoting their reputability in the media, they like to have their cake and eat it, and deceitfully exploit that "they are governed by the National Standard for Enforcement Agents".

I have put together a montage of quotes, demonstrating how versatile, and to what extent the council uses to its advantage, “the National Standards for Enforcement Agents”.

Appearing in the Grimsby Telegraph article on Tuesday, January 04, 2011:

Over 2,000 fewer people caught dodging council tax in past year

By stating that they are governed by “the National Standard for Enforcement Agents”, note how the council, as if by second nature, are misleading the public into believing that Rossendales are required to comply with these standards.

Similarly it deceives readers by instinctively claiming that “The council only passes on debts to Rossendales as a very last resort”. I believe this is dishonest because wherever possible, the council should employ other forms of recovery, for example, Attachment of Earning Orders.

However, as the number of liability orders, according to CIPFA statistics, regularly exceeds 9,000 in a year, the authority – as a preferred and easier option – use bailiffs because the volume is too high to look at each case in detail.

Council's reply to stage 1 formal complaint regarding Rossendale's fraud attempts.

19 August 2009

Notice here that the council have blatantly exploited the “National Standards for Enforcement Agents“ to bolster their argument to justify a decision not to uphold the complaint. Their motive for quoting the “standards” in this instance is of course, at complete odds to those of this complaint which states that “these are guidelines and not regulations”.

Council's reply to stage 2 formal complaint regarding Rossendale's fraud attempts.

2 November 2009

"You state in your letter that the Levy of distress was not left and as such this was not completed in line with the national standards of enforcement agents.

This is completely out of character for the council. As I mentioned earlier, they must have been forced into a corner to uphold this part of my complaint. Anyway, the point is it suited the council to use the National Standard for Enforcement Agents as a way of passing the blame onto Rossendales.

4. Prevention of accounts being passed to Rossendales by contacting the council

It is a legal requirement for the council’s collection team to check the accuracy of all accounts before processing them to the enforcement stage. There is overwhelming evidence that the council does not meet this obligation, this has been revealed in a response to a freedom of information request.

The following is taken from the supplied data, and represents the number of Liability Orders and the amount of debt which was outstanding for the last 5 years:

• 6,580 Liability Orders issued for debt less than £100

Of those,

• 1,387 were for a debt less than £25

• 981 for less than £20

• 544 for less than £15

• 82 for less than £10

• 45 for less than £5

• 12 for less than £1

And,

• 3 Liability Orders were issued for debt of only 1p

The Liability Orders obtained from the Magistrates' court permit the authority to call in the bailiffs, therefore attracting additional fees to those penalties already incurred by the alleged debtors.

You can see from the statistics arranged above that the figures would appear to be incorrect as it would be complete madness to bring about court proceedings for such low levels of debt and subjecting these residents to unnecessary expense and the stress that comes with bailiff involvement.

It seems the only way this scenario could come about would be if the administration of Council Tax were completely automated with the software package used having no functionality built into it to automatically withdraw Liability Order applications for small balances.

As mentioned earlier this is overwhelming evidence that whoever at the council should be checking these accounts, are obviously not doing so.

5. Bailiff contact

After careful consideration of your answer to my concerns about the struggling debtor, having only the expensive mobile number as their only means of contacting the bailiff, your response is not upheld.

This is because you have stated that Rossendales’ office telephone number is also printed on their notices, and emphasised that these calls are charged at a local rate.

I can not uphold this because in a similar way to how the council operates, Rossendales’ office staff have been instructed and trained to be as obstructive as possible. In the event an alleged debtor calls their office with a query, the office staff will refuse to deal with them and instruct them to call the bailiff, i.e. the alleged debtor will accrue further debt because of expensive calls to mobile phones.

6. Council’s response not relevant to my complaint

You have taken the liberty to address general issues surrounding the obvious dispute I have over my council tax payments. I have dealt with some of these earlier in this complaint. However, I’m unsure what relevance there is to bringing up my meeting with the council's Income & Collection Manager in your “customer access point….”. This seem to have nothing to do with my complaint which was more specifically about your bailiffs not following correct procedures, and the mass produced computer generated threatening letter, devised to intimidate alleged debtors into amassing further debt.

I find it ironic that you state “the result is the situation you now find yourself in, the magistrates' court granted the liability order and you continue to refuse to provide evidence of payment”

You are implying that I’m the one in some kind of predicament, not the council. As I’ve mentioned earlier, I have already made my payments which the council have accepted in accordance with Part 5 and Schedule 1 of the Council Tax Regulations.

I also fail to see the relevance to the complaint where you state I “agreed with some of his comments” (the council's Income & Collection Manager), especially when you have not specified which of these comments I had agreed with.

I note you make no mention of the implausible statement that attempted to justify the recent massive hike in the Summons penalty cost. If there was anything in this meeting proving that he was disingenuous, it was his attempt to make a case for spiraling costs of recovery.

What logic applies here? Council bosses claim the number of people facing court action is falling, surely recovery costs would decrease wouldn’t they?

Appearing in the Grimsby Telegraph article on Thursday, July 14, 2011

Help is available for your council tax bill

“However, council bosses say the number of people facing court action for failing to pay their tax has fallen year-on- year since 2007-08 – when 9,036 orders were issued – thanks to flexible payment methods”.

Or could the reduced revenue as a result of decreased numbers taken to court be the reason for the hike in the summons penalty?

By law, these fees can only cover the actual costs of Council Tax recovery, i.e. they can not be used as a revenue stream. This would throw some light on why these increases had been agreed behind closed doors with the public and press excluded and why a council document listing income generation, revealed this would raise £188,000 for each of the following 4 years.

Yours sincerely

P. Anchor.

12:40 pm
September 29, 2011

Polystyrene Anchor

Member

posts 100

Print this Post

Post edited 12:51 pm – September 29, 2011 by Polystyrene anchor

A REAPPEARANCE OF ROSSENDALES' BAILIFF

This was received in the post (28 September):

ROSSENDALES:

Wavell House

Holcombe Road, Helmshore

Rossendale

BB4 4NB

Date: 26th September 2011

Mr P. Anchor

xx Xxxx Xxxx

Grimsby

South Humberside

Client: North East Lincolnshire Council – Council Tax

Our Ref: 058x75x0

Client Ref: 5501x16x83

Outstanding Liability Order Value: £965.41

FINAL REMINDER – DO NOT IGNORE

To make immediate payment call our 24 hour automated payment line 0845 078 1x9x quoting 058x75x0

Dear Sir/Madam

Despite previous correspondence you have not made payment to clear the above overdue balance.

When the van attends you will be liable for additional costs.

In order to avoid the removal of your goods you must contact us immediately on

08447 01 x9 x0

NO FURTHER REMINDERS WILL BE ISSUED

Please ensure that all correspondence/payments quote our reference number 058X75X0 and your name and address.

Yours faithfully,

Bailiff Manager

FOR BARCODED PAYMENTS ONLY

Please note that there will be a £0.50p transaction charge for using these methods of payment. For example if you agree to pay £10 off your balance then you need to pay £10.00 plus £0.50p

¡¡¡THIS IS NOT TYPICAL OF HOW ROSSENDALES OPERATE!!!

This letter has been posted….why have they not taken advantage of a second visit (in person) to stack up their fees?

They can't legitimately charge a fee for sending threatening letters to the alleged debtor by post.

It's normal they exploit all opportunities available to them for maximising their costs.

They must have evaluated that they stand no chance of being paid so are going through the motions with the minimum of work. Or, they are being monitored.

Will be interesting to see if they try to bill me £110 for the van when it attends, accompanied by a fee for levying an arbitrary vehicle in the vicinity of my home.

Oh! To my knowledge they haven't levied any goods, why would they attend with a van?

12:54 pm
September 29, 2011

Polystyrene Anchor

Member

posts 100

Print this Post

Post edited 9:34 pm – September 29, 2011 by Polystyrene anchor

ROSSENDALES' BAILIFF DISAPPEARS

This was received in the post today:

ROSSENDALES

Wavell House

Holcombe Road, Helmshore

Rossendale

BB4 4NB

Date: No Date

Mr P. Anchor

xx Xxxx Xxxx

Grimsby

South Humberside

Dear Mr Anchor

I am writing to confirm that your account with us has been closed, at North East Lincolnshire Councils request. Please ensure any future correspondence is made to them directly.

Regards

10:44 am
September 30, 2011

Crazy Council

Admin

posts 60

Print this Post

i think the council have to pay the baillifs fees for sending them even though they have withdrawn, and i suspect these come out of the court collection fund.

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/…..ing-180850

well done on a partial victory, the council officers will now target you. been on the reciving end of them since 2001

11:34 am
October 8, 2011

Polystyrene Anchor

Member

posts 100

Print this Post

Post edited 11:39 am – October 8, 2011 by Polystyrene anchor

NORTH EAST LINCOLNSHIRE COUNCIL'S STAGE 2 FORMAL COMPLAINT RESPONSE "FARCE"

This response is nothing other than I would expect, however, it demonstrates the imbecilic mentality and contempt it holds for residents with valid concerns about the way the council is run.

There are also comments regarding this issue on the Grimsby Telegraph's website here:

Help is available for your Councuil Tax

North East Lincolnshire Council

Finance Department

Civic Offices, Knoll Street

Cleethorpes

6th October 2011

Mr P. Anchor

xx Xxxx xxx

North East Lincolnshire

DN000XJ

Dear Mr Anchor

Following your request to escalate your complaint to stage 2 of the corporate complaints process I have looked into the issues and reviewed the stage 1 response. My investigation has focussed on your Council tax and bailiff action. As part of this investigation I have contacted and spoken to all the officers involved.

I will not consider previous complaints you have made. You have clearly stated your view regarding the councils handling of previous complaints. I shall not address the issues that you have taken through the North East Lincolnshire's complaints procedure to the government, police and Local Government Ombudsman

I have considered your complaint in 7 parts:

1. Your refusal to assist in locating and allocating your payments

2. The use of Rossendales bailiffs

3. Monitoring of bailiffs

4. The National Standards for Enforcement

5. Prevention of accounts being passed to Rossendales

6. Methods of contacting bailiffs

7. The response not relevant to the complaint

1. In your stage 2 complaint you state your strong opposition to assisting the council in locating payments that you maintain you have made. I would welcome evidence of this payment to enable these to be posted to your account. However this did not form part of your stage 1 complaint and therefore cannot be introduced at this later stage.