Forum

Post edited 6:36 pm – January 4, 2012 by Polystyrene anchor

Follow on from complaint to Magistrates court – posts 49 and 51

Grimsby Magistrates' Court

Victoria Street, Grimsby

North East Lincolnshire

DN31 1NH

04/01/12

Dear Legal Team Manager

Re: Complaint made to Grimsby Magistrates’ court 16 December 2011

Thank you for your 23 December 2011 letter. I notice you have not specifically addressed my complaint. Instead you have listed three stages of a procedure, which if correctly followed, would be lawful and transparent.

However, the main body of my complaint dealt with the incorrectly followed procedure, hence the reference to "Regina v. Brentford Justices, Ex parte Catlin [1975] QB 455" and the case law from this which states “…if a magistrate authorises the issue of a summons without having applied his mind to the information then he is guilty of dereliction of duty…”

If you revisit my complaint letter of December 16, you will notice that NELC had put in writing that the council tax it pursued through the court had been paid. A point already explained in a letter to the council, and subsequently stated at the court hearing.

If my case highlights the need for such bulk processing to be brought into question, the following data obtained from the council, provides overwhelming evidence there is dereliction of duty.

The council have obtained from the court the following Liability Orders over the last 5 years, incidentally the Chief Executive of NELC has stated:

“The council's collection team checks the accuracy of all accounts before passing them to the enforcement stage. Accounts are only progressed to enforcement for amounts over £50.” From the same data source, it was determined that a total of 3,528 Liability Orders were issued for an initial debt of £50 or less.

• 1,387 Liability Orders issued for outstanding debt of less than £25

• 981 for less than £20

• 544 “ “ “ £15

• 82 “ “ “ £10

• 45 “ “ “ £5

• 12 “ “ “ £1

3 Liability Orders issued for debt of only 1p

The first item you listed in the three stage procedure, which you termed “lawful and transparent”, is:

1. “The council delivers a complaint list to the court.”

I believe the complaint list will exist in the form of a computer printout. It is also my understanding that Magistrates accept computer printouts as evidence only if supported by a certificate in accordance with Regulation 53 of the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 or Section 102 (13A) (Admissibility of evidence) of the Local Government Finance Act 1992.

Legislation specifies that such a certificate must be signed by a person occupying a responsible position in relation to the operation of the computer.

Would you please verify that this procedure is carried out and if so specify which council member was properly authorised to sign this certificate in relation to the council tax liability hearing of June 2, 2011 and send to me a copy of this document?

Secondly you state:

2. “This list is reviewed by a legal adviser, under powers delegated by the Justices' Clerk, who issues the summonses.”

In light of the ‘rather incriminating’ aforementioned liability order data, it seems logical to ask what the review process actually entails, and who is delegated the responsibility. It has already been mentioned the council's collection team should not progress accounts to enforcement for amounts under £50, but there is presumably – under Council Tax law – a minimum to which taking court action is lawful?

I think at best, the review process of the complaints laid by the council, would amount to the delegated court member’s momentary glance at the document followed by the downward motion of his rubber stamp holding arm, then repeated for however many thousand are required by the council. However, I suspect more realistically just one signed master copy would be supplied to the council which could then be reproduced for however many thousand are needed.

For your information I have already brought these issues to the attention of Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service – Complaint Handling Team, and will shortly be presenting (on approval by my MP) a complaint to the Parliamentary Ombudsman.

Yours sincerely

P. Anchor

Post edited 9:05 am – January 7, 2012 by Polystyrene anchor

Revenues & Benefits Services
Civic Offices Knoll Street
Cleethorpes
North East Lincolnshire

06/01/12

Dear Court Enforcement Manager

Re: Council tax Ref: 550xxxxxxx – Formal Complaint

Thank you for your letter dated 23 December 2011. I’m aware of the two week interval, from the date on your correspondence and that which I received it (January 6, 2012).

Am I correct in assuming the issues you have addressed are being dealt with in addition and separately to the council’s response I anticipate in relation to my Formal complaint? I ask this as your correspondence has no “formal” reference and only a fraction of the issues I raised have been addressed.

I note from your correspondence that you await payment of the £70 summons fee. I stated in my formal complaint letter of 13 December 2011 that “I had paid in accordance with Part 5 and Schedule 1 of the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations”, I can’t be held responsible – by being penalised – for the council’s inadequate automated system used in its collection of council tax.

Furthermore, after receiving the threat of court action for non-payment, I had written, advising the authority my payment had been made well before the date it was due. The council chose to ignore it.

It being your intention to collect this £70 fee, in hindsight you were probably premature in calling off your enforcement firm Rossendales, as I have no intention of forwarding this payment to the council. Also, should you decide to reinstate Rossendales to collect this fee, they will receive no cooperation from me. In fact I would hold North East Lincolnshire council wholly responsible for instructing an enforcement firm it clearly knows, carries out actions fraudulently on its behalf. You may be aware I have evidence in writing (Complaint.doc) from the council that a Rossendale’s bailiff collecting on its behalf, added fraudulent fees and the council/Rossendales was backed into a corner to cease his employment.

If, as you state, I had correctly incurred this summons fee, I would not be liable for the entire £70 cost, owing to the Council Tax Regulations stating in R34(5)(b) and (7)(b) that this should be “a sum of an amount equal to the costs reasonably incurred by the authority” and is incurred at each of the two stages independently. The council, in a bid to generate more income from these penalties, unlawfully combined both charges into one as detailed in its 2011 budget proposals. It doesn’t state that these penalties can be increased to create an additional revenue stream as the Council is doing by listing 'debt recovery' as 'income'. The council has clearly raised the penalties and combined them to plug a hole in its finances.

The council’s response to a FOI request has revealed that one of the expenses incurred by the council which make up the £70 Summons fee includes money paid to the Magistrates' court for the use of its premises. This should relate to liability order costs, R34(7)(b) of the Council Tax Regulations. Clearly by charging residents both fees at the summons stage, the council is in breach of these regulations. Not only is the council in breach of the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992, it is unfairly penalising residents incurring the £70 Summons fee who actually pay off all their debt prior to a court hearing.

Perhaps it may be worth your while to determine a realistic cost for the summons and liability order penalties – incurred separately in accordance with R34 of the Council Tax regulations – in case the need should arise in the future, I incur such penalties.

I have requested that the council apply to the Magistrates’ court under R5(2) of the Council Tax Regulations SI 2004/927  to have all trace of this order delated from the record. For your information this was sent to the head of Income & Payments Service in a letter dated 31 December 2011.

Yours sincerely

P. Anchor 

Council's reply to letters (Posts 59, 60 and 61) 

North East Lincolnshire Council
Finance Department
North East Lincolnshire
DN35 8LN

16th January 2012

Dear Mr Anchor

I am writing with reference to your 3 letters, received 5th January 2012, and your 'e' mail received 3rd January 2012.

Quashing of Liability Order and offer of compensation

I have reviewed the actions taken on your account and it is clear that payments were not made to the correct Council Tax account number or in accordance with the instalments shown on your Council Tax bill.

Regulation 34 (6) of the Council Tax Administration and Enforcement Regulations states "the court shall make the order if it is satisfied that the sum has become payable by the defendant". At the time the council was unable to prove to the Court that you had made payments. You were asked to assist the council in identifying your payments by providing further information on more than one occasion which you refused to do. As you are aware, the council has since located your payments which had been made against incorrect account numbers.

On this occasion I have agreed to withdraw the court costs and apply to the Magistrates Court to have the liability order quashed. A copy of our letter to the Magistrates Court will be issued to you in due course. However, I am not prepared to offer compensation. This matter would have been resolved at a much earlier stage if you had assisted the council in locating the payments when first requested, and the council has incurred unnecessary costs in terms of staff time spent locating the payments.

I understand that you have paid the final amount due; you will receive an amended bill confirming that the balance is 'nil' following the withdrawal of court costs. Please ensure that you quote the Council Tax account reference number shown on your bill in any correspondence and when making payments in future.

Distress for Rent Rules Form 5 complaint to the county court

North East Lincolnshire Council is aware of the procedures you outline within your letter.

Before taking such action the council must take into consideration all factors surrounding the bailiff and his conduct, including whether a complaint is fully upheld and whether there is evidence of repeated breaches of conduct.

After dealing with your complaint it was decided on this occasion that Rossendales as his employer were best placed to deal with the matter.

Your original complaint has been closed and North East Lincolnshire Council does not intend to make representations at the County Court under Regulation 8 of the distress for Rent Rules 1988.

If you wish to pursue this course of action further then you are within your rights to contact the County Court yourself, where you can put your complaint forward.

Council Representation and Documentary Evidence – Proof of Authority

In answer to your queries I can confirm:

Authorised Officers

I have enclosed the authorisation certificates signed by Xxxx Xxxx, Monitoring Officer, for the members of staff below:-

- Council's court enforcement manager (1)
- Debt recovery manager
- Court enforcement manager (2)

Certificate in Accordance signatories

Signatories for the Certificate in Accordance are:-

- Systems and Reconciliation Manager
- Income and Collection Manager
- Head of Service

I enclose a blank copy of the Certificate in Accordance for your perusal.

Yours sincerely

Xxxxxx Xxxxxx
Head of Income & Payments

Post edited 1:58 pm – January 19, 2012 by Polystyrene Anchor

North East Lincolnshire Council

Finance Department

Civic Offices Knoll Street

Cleethorpes

17/01/2012

Dear Mr Anchor,

As per Mrs Xxxxx's Letter dated 16 January 2012 please see enclosed a copy of the application made to the Grimsby Magistrates Court regarding the Liability Order Granted on the 2nd June 2011.

If you have any further queries regarding this matter please do not hesitate to contact me on 01472 323xxx

Yours sincerely,

Court Enforcement Manager

North East Lincolnshire Council

Finance Department

Civic Offices Knoll Street

Cleethorpes

 

16 January 2012

 

Grimsby Magistrates Court

Grimsby & Cleethropes Magistrates Court

Grimsby

N E Lincs

 

Dear Sirs,

Pursuant to The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 2004, Statutory instrument 2004/927 Regulation 5(2).

North East Lincolnshire Council applies to have the below Liability Order quashed by the Grimsby Magistrates Court.

 

Liability Hearing 2nd June 2011

 

Mr Anchor

Xx Xxxx Xxxxx Grimsby

DN3x xxx

 

Amount Liability Order Granted for £816.49

 

A copy of the signed front page and the page within the liability list has been included for your records.

I include a copy of the legislation under which the application is made.

Should you require any further information do not hesitate to contact me direct on 01472 323xxx.

 

Yours faithfully,

Court Enforcement Manager

 

Post edited 9:40 am – January 20, 2012 by Polystyrene Anchor

Thanks for the advice CC, though I think the three years in total I've been pursuing this arrogant brick wall over these issues would make my claim for costs almost incalculable. But I will put some figures forward for consideration of the court.

I will say however, after a soul destroying experience, dealing with North East Lincolnshire council over its previous attempt to defraud me through its bailiff firm Rossendales, I was curious to see how they would respond, knowing all correspondence could be viewed by the public.

Still obstructive and arrogant, but at least they haven't been able to hide it.

Interestingly the authority is refusing to deal with my formal complaint and has said it will not enter into further dialogue regarding the issues I've raised (they threatened this before). Do they think their failings have the best chance of going unnoticed if they refuse to address the issues? Or, does this just amount to them throwing their toys out the pram because they know they're wrong?

North East Lincolnshire council is not unique in being arrogant and obstructive. You'll find, much the same as McDonald's franchises, that all councils will be carbon copies of one another. But one thing is certain; by keeping countless thousands of cases of bailiff abuse and court costs exploitation from being uncovered, the officers in our councils are enjoying their six figure salaries and obscene pensions, funded by those they are screwing.

We all pay their wages; don't allow them to get away with it.

Post edited 7:32 pm – January 27, 2012 by Polystyrene Anchor

Attended court this morning to witness the outcome of the hearing, i.e. whether or not the district Judge would quash my council tax liability order upon the application to the Magistrates' court under Regulation 5(2) of the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 2004.

Incidentally, I would not have known when this court hearing would take place, had it not been mentioned, by chance, in relation to another issue with the court. It would have proceeded in my absence.

The council's court enforcement manager put his case first, which was entertaining. He'd obviously prepared by observing many episodes of Petrocelli.

He described, how I'd paid my council tax, as being analogous to handing payment to a lollipop lady (don't ask, I have no idea).

The Judge – although reading all my preparation notes – was only interested in the reason I'd paid instalments into accounts which were not mine, and why I refused to assist the council locate payments by supplying further information.

When he realised it was Grimsby Magistrates' court which had breached the Data Protection Act by sending me council tax references of other residents, he was no longer interested. The council's intransigence was also not considered a valid reason for me not assisting them.

I thought there was an opportunity to bring to a Judge's attention, the more general abuse of the procedure involved in liability order applications in council tax cases, however, this was of no interest to him. You could say he is living off immoral earnings, just like the CEO's of our councils.

The only positive is the liability order was quashed.

27 January 2012 – Court hearing for quashing liability order

My payments were made in paid in accordance with Part 5 and Schedule 1 of the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992.

I received the first correspondence from the council on 20 April 2011 (dated 12 April), which stated my account showed an overdue amount equal to the first instalment and that the instalment facility would be withdrawn if my account was not brought up to date by 6 May 2011. It further stated that if recovery action was taken there would be costs of £70 if a summons was issued.

I replied on 21 April explaining that an amount in excess of my first instalment payment had been sent directly from my bank account on 21 March (£90). Payment would have been credited to the council’s account well in advance of the required date, being 1 April.

I continued paying this sum each month so consequently my account’s credit continued to accumulate.

My 2nd Payment was made on April 26. However, I received a summons dated 11 May to appear at the Magistrates’ court on 2 June 2011 for non-payment of Council Tax. This was to obtain a Liability Order for my full year’s Council Tax liability plus summons costs of £70. I had by the time I received this summons, already paid £180 and my account was in credit by £5.09.

Notes on the summons costs and the summons procedure

It’s also important to note that the summons costs stated on the document is in fact the consolidated summons and liability order penalties. The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 state under Regulation R34(5)(b) and (7)(b), that the costs are those reasonably incurred by the authority and incurred at each of the two stages, independently.

By doing this, the authority has breached the council tax regulations by unlawfully combining both charges into one, as detailed in its 2011 budget proposals. The council also raised the overall cost by 23%. Both these measures were taken to raise a forecasted additional £752,000 over 4 years, without, as far as I’m aware, having any justification for the increase.

The council is therefore unlawfully collecting penalties from debtors settling their accounts prior to any court action. This procedure is not in accordance with Regulation R34(5) of the Council Tax Regulations, which requires that the authority shall not proceed with the application if the aggregate of the outstanding debt and costs reasonably incurred by the authority is paid or tendered to it. Essentially the authority is not lawfully permitted to charge debtors the liability order costs detailed in Regulation 34(7)(b) in such circumstances, however, by charging these costs prematurely at the summons stage, they have done exactly this.

Another important point, which brings into question the procedure of these bulk council tax court applications, is the limited attention it is possible to give each individual summons. This relates to both the council’s enforcement manager, responsible for delivering the complaints to the court, and the court’s legal adviser who issues the summonses, which was over 3,300 in the case of the 2 June court hearing.

My summons document was posted to me by the council, complete with a glaring error, and due to the ‘conveyor belt’ nature of these applications; it is likely that 3,000 plus summonses would have also contained the same.

The summons stated:

“If the total amount outstanding as stated above including summons costs is paid to North East Lincolnshire Council before the date of the hearing, all further proceedings will be stopped. However, if a Liability Order is granted the Council will apply for further costs of £25.00 being reasonable costs incurred.”

As mentioned previously, the council’s costs had been consolidated into one penalty charge, with the debtor effectively incurring both summons and liability order costs at the summons stage of enforcement. The document’s format had obviously not been updated to reflect the changes in the council’s costs structure.

It is negligent that the council and court had permitted these summonses to be issued, but even more remarkable is that according to the council, it had informed the Magistrates’ court by letter of its intention to increase summons costs and that there were no longer costs for a liability order.

It’s unlikely the procedure involves the exercise of a judicial function with evidence pointing to the process being merely administrative. There must be serious doubt as to whether summonses are being issued without information actually being laid before the magistrate.

Chief Justice Lord Widgery stated in the case between "Regina v. Brentford Justices, Ex parte Catlin" 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. If a magistrate authorises the issue of a summons without having applied his mind to the information then he is guilty of dereliction of duty and if in any particular justices' clerk's office a practice goes on of summonses being issued without information being laid before the magistrate at all, then a very serious instance of maladministration arises which should have the attention of the authorities without delay.”

There is further evidence that the procedure is unlikely to involve the exercise of a judicial function.

The council have revealed that over the last 5 years, it has obtained a total of 3,528 liability orders for an initial debt of £50 or less. Among these, 1,387 were issued for outstanding debt of less than £25 with orders even being made for debts of only a penny. This is despite the Chief Executive of NELC stating that:

“The council's collection team checks the accuracy of all accounts before passing them to the enforcement stage. Accounts are only progressed to enforcement for amounts over £50.”

My 3rd Payment was made on May 21 which meant my account was actually in credit by £8.09. There was no contact from the council so I had accepted that I would need to attend the court hearing on June 2.

I attended court on the 2nd. I won’t go into every detail of the experience, but will say that the whole process was obviously a sham. The council had hired a room in order to negotiate some payment deal with those in attendance. This also served to prevent them from having a court hearing; it was evident that neither court staff members nor the council expected anyone summoned to actually be heard by Magistrates. I resisted court staffs’ attempts to persuade me that a hearing was unnecessary and waited several hours before being called to the courtroom.

The council's court enforcement manager handed to one of the Magistrates, what appeared to be a bundle of computer printouts, presumably with details of payments made to my account, along with the 3,000 or so others that had been summonsed.

I believe Magistrates in these hearings accept computer printouts as evidence. This evidence though, is only permissible if supported by a certificate in accordance with Regulation 53 of the Council Tax Regulations or Section 102 (13A) of the Local Government Finance Act 1992.

Legislation specifies that such a certificate must be signed by a person occupying a responsible position in relation to the operation of the computer. I was sent a document from the council; however, this was only a template form with no signature or date. I’m therefore unable to say whether the computer printout as evidence, would have been permissible at the hearing.

I stated that my council tax instalments had been made in full and on time by internet banking, paid directly into the council’s bank account. And because my account registered the corresponding debits, I was satisfied that the council had received payment.

I was asked to supply evidence of this. I had nothing, other than my word, so the court granted the council its liability order.

A council notice dated 3 June 2011 stated that it had obtained a liability order and according to its records there was £940.91 outstanding council tax debt. If you discounted the unwarranted and unlawful £70 summons fee, my outstanding liability for that council tax year was in fact, £600.91.

The notice went on to threaten, should my account not be settled in full within 14 days, the council would instruct its appointed bailiffs.

My 4th payment was made June 27 which meant I had paid £360 of my liability and my account was actually in credit by £11.09.

5th Payment was made July 25, making payments totalling £450 and account £14.09 in credit.

The council requesting payment details

A letter dated 27 July was sent by the council, requesting payment details in order for it to allocate payments I’d made to the council to my account.

The reason for this letter was unclear, as the information was minimal. The only giveaway was that it was noted by my comments at the court hearing, that I had made payments to my outstanding council tax bill through internet banking. The obvious question was why the council had suddenly deemed it possible that I was telling the truth in the courtroom.

My understanding is, with regards council tax payments, that any which can’t be allocated to a valid account for whatever reason, will be directed to a suspense account where presumably, attempts must be made to identify these and re-direct them accordingly. Obvious checks would be cross referencing bank accounts with previous year’s payments. This would not only identify payments that had been diverted to the suspense account, but would also locate any payments mistakenly paid into the wrong but valid account.

It seems the council may have looked at procedures it should have carried out prior to the recovery process. If it is the case, this negligence would go a long way in explaining the disproportionate number of residents caught out with recovery and enforcement penalties.

A visit from a Rossendales’ bailiff

A Rossendales’ bailiff attended my property the morning of 18 August. The bailiff was accompanied by the council’s Income & Collections Manager. The reason for the council monitoring its bailiff was in my opinion because of an ongoing dispute with the council which went back three years. This was in connection with Rossendales’ bailiffs attempting to defraud me on several occasions with respect an alleged council tax debt.

I made it clear I would not enter into any dialogue with a company which systematically used criminal tactics while recovering council tax on behalf of local authorities. I have pointed out to the council on more than one occasion that they are recklessly employing the services of a criminal enforcement firm. They have evidently chosen to ignore this warning and carry on appointing Rossendales to enforce on its behalf.

The bailiff left a notice demanding £940.91 – plus costs. It also stated that the bailiff had attended with the intention of seizing my goods as necessary to discharge the debt.

It must be remembered that at this stage, if you discounted the unwarranted and unlawful £70 summons fee, my outstanding liability for that council tax year was in fact, £420.91

With reference to my previous Rossendales experience, and at a similar stage of enforcement, an actual visit had not taken place but the bailiff charged a fee for doing so. This is known as a “phantom visit” in bailiff circles. This is fraud, which the Police consider to be a civil matter, which obviously it is not, as fraud is clearly a criminal offence.

A previous accusation of fraud, no doubt prompted the council to accompany the bailiff on this visit, and is likely the only reason the bailiff appeared in person that day.

Surprisingly though, even with the council’s Income & Collections Manager overseeing operations, the bailiff’s notice did not comply with the “National Standards for Enforcement Agents” with relation to the following:

“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...”

The notice neither detailed fees for that visit, nor any fees which would be incurred if further action became necessary.

When I brought this up in a formal complaint, the council dismissed my concerns, on the grounds that the National Standards were only guidelines. However, on other occasions the authority boasts that their reputable appointed bailiff firm is governed by these Standards – especially when promoting the council’s reputation or fending off criticism.

Another payment made

A 6th payment was made August 23, this totalled £540 and my account was in credit by £17.09.

Letters from Rossendales

A letter dated 26 September from Rossendales Ltd, headed final reminder, warned that I had not made payment to clear the overdue balance, which had risen to £965.41. It also warned that when the van attends I would be liable for additional costs.

Another letter undated but received 29 September stated that my account had been closed with them at the council’s request.

There was no contact from the council as to why they had taken back my case from Rossendales. For all I knew, they could have located my payments, known that I would not have handed payment to Rossendales, or they may possibly have had committal proceedings in mind.

Another payment made

A 7th payment was made October 1, this totalled £609.91.

Request for bank statements

A letter dated 3 November was sent by the council explaining it believed my payments had been located. It had seen on the comments facility of the Grimsby Telegraph’s website that a contributor had posted details of these payments and they believed the contributor was me.

It went on to say that they had traced payments received on those dates which matched the quoted amounts, but wanted proof that the payments were made by me.

I was documenting events in the comments to one of those council propaganda articles that regularly appear in the Grimsby Telegraph. It seemed appropriate as the article dealt with the liability orders and enforcing payment through its bailiffs. I chose to do this because previous attempts to highlight failings through the formal complaint procedure had been totally soul destroying. For whatever reason, the council default to the defensive, and any investigation into complaints are far from impartial. I was under no illusion that the council would be any less awkward or arrogant than they normally were, but at least it could be observed in the open.

These details were in fact posted on the Grimsby Telegraph’s website on October 1. However, I also sent a letter detailing the same dates and payment amounts on October 10.

I suspected that at least one member of the council was posting on the same article. There was continual goading with comments such as “Pay your Council Tax” and references made with regards proving payments. I was almost sure this was the work of council employees when the contributor ceased when the October 1 details had been posted on the website.

I replied to the 3 November letter on 7 November and explained I would not be sending bank statements unless the council paid sufficient postage to cover a safe and secure transition of these documents which I considered to be of a sensitive nature. The unprofessional way council staff had conducted themselves with regards the GT website was also brought to their attention.

Undated letter from council

I received a letter on the 23 November which explained that the council had not received my letter detailing the dates and payment amounts I’d made on October 10. However, it was satisfied that they were my payments and would be allocated to my account.

The letter explained that my payments had been allocated to an incorrect but valid account reference which I had mistakenly quoted on my bank instructions. Their investigations raised a question regarding their ownership and at this point the payments were put into a suspense account whilst it was established to which account they should correctly be allocated. The council refused to give documentary evidence of the account I’d paid into on the grounds it was not my account and it would breach the data protection act.

There was however, no indication as to where I stood regarding the recovery action they had taken, nor the penalties I’d incurred through summons costs and bailiff fees.

Reference numbers mistakenly entered into bank payment instructions

I checked both bank accounts used to pay my council tax, and discovered both had incorrect reference numbers assigned to the payment instruction. It was odd though that both account references were wrong with different wrong numbers.

These unlikely set of circumstances were down to Grimsby Magistrates' court carelessly sending me council tax details of several other residents after a request for information relating to Liability Orders.

I had complained to the Information Commissioners Office about a breach of the Data protection Act. However, the ICO did not regard my complaint worthy of any formal action, incidentally, nor did it think the serious issues I raised about Rossendales breaching the Data Protection Act on another occasion were worthy of action.

These details, i.e. council tax reference numbers, were on my desk and to hand, and had to be the reason I mistakenly entered incorrect numbers in my bank payment instructions.

The council has some news

I received a letter on 6 January 2012. This was dated 23 December and was the first time the council had mentioned the situation regarding the enforcement action since it formally accepted my payments had been made in its 23 November letter. Presumably this was prompted by various letters I had written for some explanation. If I had not done this, it’s unlikely I would ever have been notified.

It was the council's decision to withdraw the bailiff fee from my account. However, it deemed I had failed to make council tax payments in accordance with my bill, as I mistakenly quoted the account number on your payments. Therefore the £70 summons fee had been correctly incurred and awaited its payment.

I also received a letter dated 16 January, this was in response to a series of letters regarding among other issues, the quashing of the liability order. It specified I had refused to assist the council in identifying my payments by providing further information and emphasised that I had refused to do this on more than one occasion.

This is true, and I have no problem admitting it.

Was this the same council that was asking for my assistance that had threatened me, attempted to defraud me through Rossendales on several occasions, twice taken unnecessarily court action for alleged non-payment of council tax, lied, been obstructive, wasted endless months of my time in disputes which in turn led to further disputes with the Police, Local Government Ombudsman and Information Commissioners Office?

I had paid in accordance with Part 5 and Schedule 1 of the Council Tax Regulations, I should not have received threatening letters, been taken to court, incurred summons costs, or had my account sent to Rossendale’s bailiffs and incurred their fees.

There has been a completelack of cooperation from the council at every turn, an inability to address issues raised and a make a fair, unbiased assessment and of ever admitting fault.

A following selection of quotes may give an insight into their intransigence:

“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.”

“I can make you aware that North East Lincolnshire Council will not be raising your concerns as a formal complaint and will not enter into further dialogue regarding the issues you have raised.”

“Thank you for your email. It is clearly in response to the stage 3 findings and is not in relation to a new complaint. We will not therefore be taking any further action. As stated in the stage 3 response you still have the option to take your issues to the Local Government Ombudsman.”

“Your original complaint has been closed and North East Lincolnshire Council does not intend to make representations at the county court under Regulation 8 of the distress for Rent Rules 1988.

If you wish to pursue this course of action further then you are within your rights to contact the County Court yourself, where you can put your complaint forward.”

North East Lincolnshire Council
Civic Offices Knoll Street
North East Lincolnshire
DN35 8LN

13/02/12

Dear head of Income & Payments Service

Re: Professional negligence

I’m sure you are aware that on the 17 January 2012, the council’s court enforcement manager Mr Xxx Xxxx informed me in writing that the council wouldn’t be raising my concerns as a formal complaint nor would it enter into further dialogue regarding the issues I’d raised.

It’s unlikely this decision would have been taken by Mr Xxxx and as head of Income & Payments Service I assume authority to sanction this was given by you.

Because of the council’s negligence and failure to deal with my formal complaint, I’ll take it that for all intents and purposes, the Local Government Ombudsman will view all stages of North East Lincolnshire’s formal complaint procedures have been exhausted, which will consequently allow me to take the complaint directly to the organisation.

The council’s apparent policy to profit from the recovery process in council tax cases has encouraged me to look into aspects of the Income & Payments Service, in particular that of council tax recovery and the council’s bailiff contractor.

I have made sufficient allegations of the council’s profiteering and involvement in fraud that it is unlikely this hasn’t filtered through to you. However, your first and only apparent involvement has been your 16 January response to my letters of 5th January 2012, dealing with among other issues, the quashing of my liability order, erroneously applied for by NELC.

One can appreciate, through the inattentive manner in which the recovery department is generally run, how so many thousands of cases of alleged non-payment of council tax are unnecessarily processed through the Magistrates’ court and progressed to bailiffs for enforcement.

The council has obtained over the last 5 years, a total of 3,528 liability orders for an initial debt of £50 or less, with some of these orders even being made for debts of only a penny. This is particularly negligent when the council's collection team should check the accuracy of all accounts before passing them to the enforcement stage, and only amounts over £50 should be progressed to enforcement.

Following an amendment of the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 which came into force on the 1 April 2007 (SI 2007/501), the department failed to amend its records.

The document which details ‘Schedule 5’ of the regulations, and sent out to thousands of residents each year by the council, failed to reflect the amended change in one of the fees connected with distress, which the council’s bailiffs, are lawfully required to charge.

More than 40,000 of these documents containing legislative errors had been sent out since the 2007 amendment. I wrote to the council pointing out this error, however, it didn’t prevent it sending out a further four and a half thousand of these documents which were four years out of date, before amendments where made.

In another demonstration of negligence within the recovery department, it is likely the council sent out at least 3,359 summonses containing out of date information relating to costs for obtaining a liability order. This is remarkable because the council had informed the Magistrates’ court by letter of its intention to increase summons costs and that there were no longer costs for a liability order. The fact neither the council nor Magistrates’ court noticed thousands of documents containing errors, raises serious concerns and brings into question whether there is any monitoring of liability order applications.

It would follow that all 3,359 of these summonses would be void, and any court cost and enforcement fees imposed as a result of the flawed documents would have been incurred unlawfully.

My assertion that court costs and bailiff fees will have been unlawfully obtained is reinforced by the council having to re-send letters sent out on the 3 June 2011. 2,207, 14 day ‘duplicate’ bailiff notifications were sent out in total on 9 June by Income & Payments Service, as a follow-up to liability orders being issued by the Grimsby Magistrates' Court on 2nd June 2011. These documents, like the 3,359 summonses, were defective. If it was deemed necessary by the council to make corrections to these 14 day notices, then the summonses should have also been corrected and re-sent. To my knowledge, none of these defective summonses were corrected and re-sent.

I have repeatedly warned the council about Rossendales, and have provided more than enough evidence that they operate criminally. However, the council continues to use this enforcement firm, in the full knowledge that their methods of enforcing payment include defrauding residents.

I sent notification to several council staff members that on the 31 October 2011, an episode of the ITV 1 Exposure series would feature Rossendales Ltd. The documentary revealed that potential bailiffs undergoing training to work for Rossendales were actually instructed to operate criminally.

Rossendales’ malpractice has been well documented in the National press and I have also brought this to the attention of the council, yet NELC continues to use their services. I'm aware – only in recent weeks – NELC have signed an agreement with Rossendales for them to continue their contract.

Rossendales’ service level agreement with the council was signed by yourself on 19 January 2012. Issues I’ve raised have been deemed unfounded by the council which clearly should have been upheld, if the agreement had been detailed correctly. There is a serious failing of the councils’ formal complaint procedure where blatant breaches of conduct are supported by the authority.

I have proof of the council being grossly incompetent with its investigations into Rossendales complaints. Either that, or a dishonest approach has been taken to achieve a “no fault outcome”.

In considering all the above, it is my opinion that as head of income & Payments Service and being overall responsible for the negligence and incompetence that has occurred, the only decent thing you can do is resign from the post. Of course I extend this view to Xxxxx Xxxxx, the Chief Executive of the council who should also mirror this action.

Yours sincerely

P. Anchor

Post edited 11:06 am – February 22, 2012 by Polystyrene Anchor

Hi a54,

Thanks for the appreciation.

I felt forced into making public the council's incompetence and lack of care of duty. I realised after a catalogue of cover-ups at the hands of the council, Police, LGO etc etc…. that they are pretty much immune to prosecution, but despite this, I was determined they would not keep this issue under wraps.

Your story highlights the familiar characteristics which seem common to all local authorities. When they get their teeth into something – whether they're right or wrong – they just don't let go. The fact that they ruin lives doesn't enter into anything with them, it becomes a competition that they "will win" at any cost.

I wonder if the conveyor belt nature of enforcement processes are the cause of the 'chain of events' which get set in motion, that nobody is willing or authorised to intervene. If we were privy to information detailed in job descriptions or terms of employment of council staff we deal with, it may well reveal that pressure to hit targets could be a cause of the obstruction.

An interesting point is the obstructive and routine way council staff reject any complaint about any matter related to recovery.

The following is quoted from a document entitled “North East Lincolnshire Council – Corporate Debt Recovery Strategy”:

“Only officers within the Debt Recovery Section, after agreement with the Debt Recovery Manager, will be able to intervene in the recovery cycle to deal with hardship or dispute situations. This includes the ability to make deferred payment arrangements or suspend recovery action due to the debtor’s lack of means.”

I expect several lines of defence would prevent residents, querying issues, to make successful contact with any staff member in debt recovery within the council’s Income & Payments Services. Perhaps the biggest line of defence though, would be that aggrieved residents, wishing to raise concerns, would have their telephone enquiries diverted, and “dealt with by a corporate call centre, outside of the Income & Payments Services”

This would prevent any problems being highlighted, and consequently, would escalate without being brought to the attention of the relevant managers, who should, if they had authorisation to do so, investigate the complaint.

The authority’s formal complaint procedure fails too. As far as the council is concerned, they are always right and they always act within the law. It’s evident that authorities seem confident, very few formal complaints which are progressed to the Local Government Ombudsman, will have any consequences for them. Remember the complainant has no access to details the council may have sent that could influence the Ombudsman.

From my experience, you are also pretty much stitched-up when taking issues to the Citizen’s advice bureau. These bureaux generally receive council funding, and being a principal funder, this seems to give councils the right to draft service level agreements and consequently influence how the organisation is run.

I hope your council oblige and apply to the Magistrates' court to have your illegally obtained liability orders quashed, this, I should imagine, would be at least one hurdle passed.