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

12:02 pm
February 22, 2012

a54

Member

posts 3

Print this Post

i wish there was a way that we could make the local councillors, mayor, local mp all accountable for the actions of the council. all of them could afford to lose one or two votes from people like us but if they recieved a red warning mark against their name on a webpage advertised in the local papers when it came to voting them in again because of inaction against dodgy council practice, they may think about keeping an eye on how the council behave and ensure everyone gets fair treatment.

I've seen council tax benefits officers being outwardly rude, bold as brass insulting and demeaning the people they're supposed to help, then openly inviting them to complain knowing that nothing will come of it.

in all fairness they must come into contact on a daily basis with people that do try to abuse or scam the system although this doesnt give them the right to treat everyone as criminals or third class citizens.

There is a definite corrupt streak that runs right through councils. Over the years I've seen school teachers falsify evidence to get pupils expelled, when the evidence was brought to light and shown to school governers, head of education in the borough, mp, police, etc. NO ACTION TAKEN

My 14 year old daughter was attacked by a 24 year old adult, a really vicious assault on school grounds in front of 100's of children, a teacher had to pull this adult off. Yet because the head of year knew the assailant she let her go, perverted the course of justice by deliberating taking statements from pupils that weren't even there. God knows what she told the police but they didn't even investigate and no charges were brought against the assailant even though they knew who she was.

I've been at a meeting where the head of childrens services and my local councillor were present and a senior member child protection openly admitted breaching the data protection act to access private data to ensure his name was not 'mentioned' in a complaint about an inquiry. result? NO ACTION TAKEN

So in all honesty, one can only hope in situations like this that you come across 1 decent member of staff who has some morals and the authority to do the right thing.

5:15 pm
February 22, 2012

Crazy Council

Admin

posts 60

Print this Post

Lots of people havew very similar experiance with councilk officers and the council tax systems, I will email you privatly tonight as i may have some helpfull advice for you, i was bankrupted by my council in similar curcumstances. Whio is your council

11:33 am
March 8, 2012

Polystyrene Anchor

Member

posts 100

Print this Post

Post edited 8:17 pm – March 10, 2012 by Polystyrene Anchor

North East Lincolnshire Council

Finance Department

Civic Offices Knoll Street

Cleethorpes

08/03/12

Dear Head of Income and Payments Service

Re: Formal Complaint submitted 13 December 2011

I’m returning the bill I received this morning for my council tax liability which commences April 2012.

If you recall I stated the following in a formal complaint dated 13 December 2011, to which the council have refused to address:

“…..For this reason and because of the nightmare I have experienced over recent years due to the council’s incompetence, I request that starting from next year my Council Tax account be no longer administered by NELC and arrangement be made for an alternative method for its collection.”

Please note I’m not refusing to pay my council tax liability by returning this bill, only prompting a response for an alternative arrangement for its payment.

To avoid the risk of being subjected to more of North East Lincolnshire council's incompetence in its administration of council tax –as I’ve requested more than once – please make alternative arrangement for its collection.

Yours sincerely

P. Anchor.

8:18 pm
March 13, 2012

Polystyrene Anchor

Member

posts 100

Print this Post

Post edited 11:51 am – March 14, 2012 by Polystyrene Anchor

North East Lincolnshire council

13/03/12

Mr Anchor,

On behalf of the Head of Income & Payments Service, I am writing in response to your letter dated 8/3/12, which was received on 12/3/12. In answer to your letter and with reference to your liability to pay Council Tax to North East Lincolnshire Council, the Council is unable to accept your request to ‘make alternative arrangement for its collection’.

Whilst you have a liability to pay Council Tax to North East Lincolnshire Council you should pay in accordance with the bill you have received, your account reference is clearly stated on the bill with details of payment instructions and methods on the reverse. The bill has been returned to you in the post for your retention. If you fail to pay in accordance with the bill, recovery procedures will ensue.

Please be informed that North East Lincolnshire Council will not enter into any further dialogue with you regarding this matter.

Regards,

Income & Collection Manager

Income & Payments Service

8:30 pm
March 14, 2012

Polystyrene Anchor

Member

posts 100

Print this Post

Post edited 8:59 pm – March 14, 2012 by Polystyrene Anchor

North East Lincolnshire Council
Finance Department
Civic Offices Knoll Street
Cleethorpes

14/03/12

Dear Income & Collection Manager

Re: Refusal to make alternative arrangement for council tax payments

I refer to your email of 13 March 2012, and note your refusal to make alternative arrangement for my council tax payments. You have also stated "that North East Lincolnshire Council will not enter into any further dialogue with you regarding this matter."

Though you're unlikely to respond, I'm sure you'll be reading this, so I will ask anyway why have you – and the council's court enforcement manager on a previous occasion – replied to letters which were specifically sent to the head of income & payments service to address?

Are both you and the court enforcement manager as I suspect, completely spineless?

Having had talks with each of you, I'm convinced you're at least bull$_t artists. You have both, on behalf of Ms Xxx, put in writing that you will not enter into any further dialogue regarding the issues I've raised.

This is probably the reason why so many monumental cluck-ups emanate from the recovery department of North East Lincolnshire council. The head of department will be relying on staff not having the balls to stand up to her intimidation, leaving residents having to pay for their incompetence.

How can you have any respect for yourself when each time you're confronted with something you don't like, (or your boss doesn't) you throw your toys out the pram. The council must rely heavily on the fact details of maladministration are kept from the public when a decision is taken by the council to take back its ball, this is why a record of all correspondence between the council and myself is available on public view.

Excessive costs are being incurred by far too many residents because of unnecessarily high volumes of Council tax liability order applications.

The council should be focussing its attention in reducing the numbers needlessly passed over for recovery, and concentrate on recovery from the real problem payers. As it now stands the system is being massively abused because of officers over enthusiasm to maximise income generated with court applications.

You are mistaking you role which is to process the recovery of outstanding debt, and not exploit court action for a source of revenue. These are merely numbers to you, with each account progressed to court, generating up to 10 percent on top of the council tax bill.

Unfortunately it's householders caught-out, because of the authority's target culture, who are forced into paying additional charges and often bailiff fees. The disproportionate number of resident's accounts being progressed to court and subsequently incurring these costs, is likely to be as a result of manipulation rather than negligence of council and courts' legal advisers in reviewing the cases.

NELC has a minimum amount of outstanding debt, below which, the recovery department should not progress for court action. Data obtained from a Freedom of Information request indicates that in far too many cases, debt below this minimum (£50), make up complaint lists which the authority delivers to the court.

Evidently these lists are not – in any meaningful way – being reviewed by court staff, and applications just being rubber stamped (sometimes thousands with respect a single application) giving the councils the go-ahead to post out summonses with a gain of £70 a go.

But NELC will have no inclination in addressing this, because it has been stated before when there has been absolutely nothing in the council's defence, "North East Lincolnshire Council will not enter into any further dialogue with you regarding this matter."

The council is without doubt conducting its business like a mafia organisation, oppressing the public and extorting money from them by various methods, including criminal bailiff firm 'Rossendales'. This firm are abetted by the Ministry of Justice, who, like local authorities are profiting from recovery operations by taking a cut out of each liability order application. Given the MoJ is also in on the act, there's little hope it would be interested in stamping out the abuse where accounts needlessly incur court costs and are progressed to bailiffs for enforcement.

I'm at a loss to know how these government whores have got away with this for so long, and why the public have allowed it.

If a properly functioning justice system was in place, council officers would be jailed for this fraud, instead the corrupt system holds the criminal officers in high regard for being responsible for generating a healthy stream of revenue.

It seems dishonesty is at the very heart of the council, with incompetence making it necessary for staff throughout the council to be obstructive and lie when dealing with the public.

There are obstacles preventing residents making contact with staff members in debt recovery, the biggest perhaps being 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 inaccessibility has consequences for complaints about bailiffs in that it prevents malpractice being highlighted, and consequently, being allowed to continue without being brought to the attention of the relevant managers, who should – if they had authorisation and inclination to do so – investigate the complaint.

As far as an independent view of these concerns, residents are 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 gives councils the right to draft service level agreements and consequently influence how the organisation is run. The indoctrination that its contractor bailiff is the council's reputable appointed bailiff firm, who act according to guidelines, is most likely the reason the CAB take no interest.

I'm unable to understand why the authority has no wish to fend off accusations I've made against the council and council officers. After all I have been upfront in stating that council officers, including the Chief Executive are resorting to criminal behaviour in allowing systematic fraud to go on within the council. I've also stated that the council is responsible for the fraud committed by its contractor Rossendales.

I can only conclude that should such a case be brought before a judge, the whole can of worms would be there for all to see, and this is probably the last thing NELC wants.

Yours sincerely

P. Anchor

12:06 pm
March 15, 2012

Polystyrene Anchor

Member

posts 100

Print this Post

Post edited 12:09 pm – March 15, 2012 by Polystyrene Anchor

Polystyrene Anchor said:

I SUPPOSE THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT OMBUDSMAN SHOULD BE THE NEXT AVENUE

However, if you think the council are incalcitrant, just wait till the Local Government Ombudsman do their bit and dismiss the council's failings as merely an acceptable inconvenience which they can't investigate, either because it is doesn't fall under their juristiction or it can be dealt with through the courts.

Futile I know but you have to go through the motions.

Local Government Ombudsman – Complaint Form

What do you think the body did wrong?

North East Lincolnshire Council tried to recover council tax which I had already paid to them. This included:

1. Sending threatening letters.

2. Withdrawing instalment facility

3. Adding an unlawful penalty fee – explained in correspondence supplied

4. Taking court action against me in the Magistrates' court

5. Instructing Rossendale's bailiffs to collect this non-debt

6. The Council's Income & Collection Manager accompanying bailiff on visit to my home. This Indicates that Rossendales have been defrauding residents with phantom visits, as they attempted with me previously

7. The Rossendale's bailiff, under the observation of the Council's Income & Collection Manager, failing to comply with the National Standard for Enforcement Agent's Code of Practice which the council claims “they are governed by”

“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.”

8. The council defending Rossendales, failing to comply with the National standard's Code of Practice on the grounds that they are only guidelines. This is despite the council priding itself that they are governed by them in news reports and in response to formal complaints.

North East Lincolnshire Council had the arrogance to send round a bailiff from crooked enforcement firm Rossendales even though I had previously highlighted that they were in fact criminals and tried on several occasions to defraud me.

I believe the council knew long before they admitted that I had paid my council tax instalments in full and on time, due to them calling off Rossendales in September 2011. However, they didn't acknowledge my payments until they sent an un-dated letter (received 23 November 2011).

How has this affected you?

As far as I'm aware I had not defaulted on my council tax payments, I paid in accordance with Part 5 and Schedule 1 of the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 (As amended).

I should not have received threatening letters, been taken to court, incurred summons costs, or had my account sent to Rossendales' bailiffs, incurring their fees.

The council's stubbornness in taking seriously or acknowledging any of the serious issues I've raised over recent years has left me no alternative but to exhaust one avenue after another to get recognition that NELC are getting away with flouting laws apparently without any challenge.

There is something seriously wrong with the oppressive way councils are allowed to treat the public. I have identified – because of the council's actions – many failings, and because of this felt obliged to get some redress. This is proving almost impossible, due largely to the council and every other organisation I have contacted being negligent, preferring to turn a blind eye.

What do you think the body should do to put things right?

End the contract it has with Rossendales Ltd to enforce council tax payments.

Investigate the legality of charging as one fee the summons and liability order penalty at the summons stage which is clearly in breach of Regulation 34 of the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992.

Investigate the legality of making a profit from summons and liability order penalties which is clearly a breach of Regulation 34 of the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992.

Award compensation to residents who have been affected by fraud or attempted fraud because of the council and its use of Rossendales Ltd.

Award compensation to myself for council needlessly sending threatening letters, taking court action, incurring summons costs, Instructing Rossendale's bailiffs to collect a non-debt incurring their fees and the two to three years I have been battling with the council to get these issues recognised.

Local Government
OMBUDSMAN

14 March 2012

Dear Mr Anchor

Complaint against North East Lincolnshire Council

I have now formed a provisional view about your complaint. Before I make a final decision I want to give you an opportunity to comment.

I previously informed you that I thought I would have to make enquiries of the Council. However following the information you forwarded to me I am of the view that I have sufficient information to reach a decision.

The enclosed statement sets out my provisional view and explains my reasons for it. I will take any comments you make into account. It is important that you let me know if:

you think I have misunderstood something or got any facts wrong;

you disagree with my reasoning; or

there is information in the statement that would make it possible for someone to identify you.

It would be helpful if you could let me have your comments by 28 March 2012. If you need more time please let me know.

Yours sincerely

Investigator

Provisional view

Complaint ref:
BinJ: North East Lincolnshire Council
Date: 14 March 2012

1. The complaint

1.1. Mr X says that he paid Council Tax into someone else's Council Tax account. Mr X says that the Council failed to identify that he had made payments into the wrong account.

1.2. Mr X says that the Council obtained a Liability Order in the Magistrates Court for nonpayment of his Council Tax bill even though payments had been made.

1.3. Mr X says that the Council's bailiffs do not operate within the law and that the Council's charges in relation to unpaid Council Tax are unreasonable.

2. The law and the Ombudsman

2.1. Under the law (the Local Government Act 1974) it is the Ombudsman's role to consider complaints made to her of maladministration by bodies in her jurisdiction which cause injustice to the complainant. The Ombudsman cannot question whether a decision or action is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it, but rather must consider whether the body has acted reasonably in accordance with the law, its own policies and generally accepted standards of local administration. Where a body has acted with maladministration, the Ombudsman may only uphold a complaint if that maladministration has resulted in injustice to the complainant.

2.2. The Local Government Ombudsman has the power to decide whether to start, continue or discontinue an investigation into any complaint (Section 24A(6) Local Government Act 1974). We are publicly funded to provide a service without charge to citizens who have suffered an injustice as a result of a council or some other authority acting with maladministration or failing in its provision of service. The Ombudsman must use the resources available to her as effectively as possible. This means that we will not start or continue an investigation once we are satisfied that there is no evidence of maladministration or the type and extent of injustice does not warrant the public expense of our involvement.

3. The law relevant to this complaint

Council Tax

3.1. The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 SI 613 covers both the way councils collect payments of Council Tax and the manner in which councils can recover Council Tax debt.

3.2. The Council Tax bill for the year is due on the 1 st April. The Council will usually arrange for payments to be collected through ten monthly instalments. If any instalment is missed the Council will usually send a reminder to the resident. If a payment is still not made or a further payment missed then the entire outstanding balance will be due (i.e. the full amount for the rest of the year).

3.3. Section 23 of the Regulations says that if three instalments are missed within the same Council Tax year then the whole unpaid balance will be due and the right to pay by instalments is lost.

Council Tax Recovery

3.4. If a person fails to pay their Council Tax bill when it is due then the Council will usually commence recovery action.

3.5. In order to be able to use the various powers available to it to recover unpaid Council Tax, the Council has to apply to the Magistrates Court for a Liability Order against the person or persons it believes should have paid the bill. The Council must satisfy the Magistrates that the debt exists and that the person or persons named are liable to pay it. The resident against whom the debt is sought is notified of the hearing by the Court and can attend to defend themselves.

3.6. Once the Council has obtained a Liability Order then it can begin legal recovery action. A Liability Order obtained through a Magistrates Court is not the same as a county court judgement and so is unlikely to affect a person's credit rating score.

3.7. Recovery action can take many different forms. The Council may instruct bailiffs to recover the debt by arranging payments or goods can be seized and sold to payoff the debt.

4. What happened

4.1. Mr X says that he has been dealing with the Magistrates Court regarding its involvement in Council Tax arrears cases. Mr X says that the Court sent him Council Tax bills for other people in response to a request he made under the Data Protection Act 1998.

4.2. Mr X says that he became confused and used the wrong reference number when he paid his bill using internet banking.

4.3. The Council wrote to Mr X when it did not receive any payments on his Council Tax account. Mr X replied advising the Council that he had paid. The Council says that it asked Mr X to provide details of the account he paid money to but says he declined to provide this information.

4.4. On 2 June 2011 the Council was granted a Liability Order by the Magistrates Court. The Council was awarded costs of £70. Following this I understand that Mr X incurred a bailiff's charge of £24.50.

4.5. The Council carried out investigations on its own systems and located Mr X's payments which had been made to the wrong Council Tax accounts.

4.6. The Council has agreed to withdraw the bailiff's charge and its court costs. The Council has also applied to the Magistrates Court to have the Liability Order quashed. The Order was quashed by the Court on 27 January 2012. Mr X says that he was not informed of the hearing and found out it was happening when he contacted the Court. Mr X says that he does not believe the Court would have quashed the Order if he had not been present.

5. Provisional view

5.1. As set out above in paragraph 2.2 the Ombudsman has the power not to investigate a complaint if type and extent of injustice does not warrant the public expense of our involvement.

5.2. The Council are not to blame for Mr X paying the wrong Council Tax bill. Furthermore, I have seen no evidence that Mr X provided the Council with details of the accounts he paid amounts against. The Council has had to carry out its own investigations to establish what payments Mr X made. I cannot see any reason to be critical of the Council for applying for a Liability Order.

5.3. In any case the Council has now had the Order quashed and has waived the charges incurred by Mr X. I cannot see that there is any outstanding injustice caused to Mr X that warrants the public expense of an Ombudsman investigation.

5.4. I appreciate that Mr X has strong feelings about the Council's use of bailiffs to pursue Council Tax debts. However as the Council has waived the bailiff fee he has incurred I cannot see that he has suffered an injustice that warrants investigation.

6. Conclusion

6.1. I cannot see any evidence of an outstanding injustice to Mr X as a result of the matters he has complained of. For that reason I have decided not to start an investigation into this complaint.

Investigator

On behalf of the Local Government Ombudsman

11:11 pm
March 17, 2012

Polystyrene Anchor

Member

posts 100

Print this Post

Post edited 9:52 pm – March 18, 2012 by Polystyrene Anchor

Local Government Ombudsman
Beverly House
17 Shipton Road
York

Complaint ref: xx0 xx0

17/03/12

Dear Mr lgo investigator

Re: Complaint against North East Lincolnshire Council

Thank you for your 14 March 2012 correspondence informing me of your provisional view. This again demonstrates the scandalous abuse of public money that the government throws at organisations to bury the truth and keep the incompetence of local authorities from the public eye. I had fully expected you would not find evidence of injustice as a result of North East Lincolnshire council's actions and was simply going through the motions when I submitted details of my grievances to the LGO.

As we discussed on March 9, I had already had experience of how the Ombudsman worked so I know that the LGO's function is to protect councils from reputational risk and legal challenge by avoiding cases.

The LGO previously refused to investigate when this council imposed court costs and subsequently subjected me to their criminal bailiff firm 'Rossendales' who attempted, on several occasions, to defraud me with phantom visits, an unlawful levy and other illegalities, even though my council tax was being regularly paid to the authority.

The LGO was not the only corrupt organisation involved. As well as the council and LGO, the Police, IPCC and ICO were all negligent and turned a blind eye to complaints about North East Lincolnshire Council and Rossendales for Fraud and breaches of the Data Protection Act.

When you first realise the extent of the corruption in our town halls, the shock and loss of innocence sensed, can be compared to when you first realised there never existed a bearded old man who would abseil down the inside of your chimney once a year. However, I have dealt with these issues for sufficient time now that no amount of corruption shocks or surprises me.

It could be said I started to lose my innocence when I began encountering the lies and deception of my local authority – when it came to the Police, IPCC and LGO I was positively stripped of it.

Over the last 7 years, the government has pumped into the LGO over £100 million of taxpayer's money. Taxpayer's then, are funding a scheme that makes local authorities virtually immune to criticism or prosecution.

On the face of it, I suppose almost fifteen and a half million a year seems a lot of public money. However, in the scheme of things, this sum is a relatively low amount to be spent on what could be described as an elaborate scheme set up to protect councils and could explain why the vast majority of complaints are never investigated.

Looking at it from this prospective then, it could be viewed that the LGO is the local authorities' indemnity cover which the government takes out to insure against acts of fraud and maladministration by its councils, with the added bonus that the insurance premium is paid by the taxpayer. Quite clearly this is an outrageous misuse of taxpayer's funds. It's obvious that the LGO and organisations like them are ineffective and have been set up to try and convince the public that local authorities are accountable. This however, as we know is just a sham.

It's understandable why many hold similar views to myself. An organisation, supposedly put in place to ensure fair play, but which systematically turns a blind eye to council abuse is only going to attract outrage from those who've suffered injustice. The inflexible criteria which complaints must meet to qualify for investigation must have obviously been designed to filter out, all but a handful of cases to justify the fifteen or so million it costs taxpayers each year.

I can only assume investigators are given strict instructions by the Ombudsman that under no circumstances are they to find any grounds for an investigation and that all creativity should be used to justify their decision. I question how much employees of the organisation are paid by the government and if the remuneration is such that the temptation to blow the whistle on corrupt practices would come at too high a financial cost, or if the employers have a gun to their heads.

I figure there would be someone with a sense of right and wrong who would want to expose the reality, I'm sure all the nationals would be interested to pay an attractive sum for the details.

I will provide my comments to your provisional view but I’ll stress this is firmly on the understanding that I’m just going through the motions and not expecting any kind of serious consideration will be given them by yourself.

4. What happened

You mentioned in items 4.1 & 4.2 that I had mistakenly used reference numbers of another resident's council tax account which the Magistrates' court sent me as a consequence of requesting information. However, you have not mentioned that in doing this the Magistrates' court was in breach of the seventh data protection principle in Part I of Schedule 1 of the Data Protection Act 1998, in that under section 2 of the Act it had sent someone else's sensitive personal data to myself.

This is mentioned in neither section 4 nor 5 of your provisional view, and is probably because you consider it nothing to do with the LGO. I will say however, that it is a contributing factor to why my concerns were raised, and as such shouldn’t be brushed aside merely because it is considered out of the organisation’s remit.

You have made an error in item 4.3 and assumed that after I'd written advising the Council I had paid, the Council says that it asked me to provide details of the account I paid money to but says I declined to provide this information. You are correct in saying I had advised the Council I had paid, however, they chose not to acknowledge my letter and did not ask that I provide details of the account I had paid money to. It sounds to me like the council have been lying to you or you have just not been very thorough.

For your information, the council did not become interested in my payments until after I'd incurred the £70 summons fee and they'd obtained a liability order from the Magistrates' court. Neither the Magistrate, nor the council's court enforcement manager were interested when I stated in the courtroom that I had made my payments to the council.

5. Provisional view

You have stated in item 5.3 that the Council has now had the Order quashed and has waived the charges I incurred and you cannot see that there is any outstanding injustice caused that warrants the public expense of an Ombudsman investigation.

I can't agree that the council quashing the order and waiving the charges makes everything OK. Just like I don't agree that everything was OK in my last complaint about fraudulent bailiff charges, just because the council/Rossendales eventually wrote off the fraudulent charges. The effort involved in working against an intransigent council is not trivial, and I consider over three years being embroiled in issues with the authority over fraud and corruption to be an injustice.

I have already conveyed my thoughts about public money being thrown at the LGO and find your comments about public expense offensive.

You say in item 5.4 that I have strong feelings about the Council's use of bailiffs to pursue Council Tax debts.

Have you some reservations about quoting what I'd written in my complaint? I think having "strong feelings about the Council's use of bailiffs to pursue Council Tax debts" was under stating it a bit.

"North East Lincolnshire Council had the arrogance to send round a bailiff from crooked enforcement firm Rossendales even though I had previously highlighted that they were in fact criminals and tried on several occasions to defraud me."

That about covers my comments regarding your provisional view. Though there are a number of points you haven't dealt with which I made in my original complaint.

These were:

3. Adding an unlawful penalty fee – explained in correspondence supplied

6. The Council's Income & Collection Manager accompanying bailiff on visit to my home. This Indicates that Rossendales have been defrauding residents with phantom visits, as they attempted with me previously

7. The Rossendale's bailiff, under the observation of the Council's Income & Collection Manager, failing to comply with the National Standard for Enforcement Agent's Code of Practice which the council claims "they are governed by"

"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."

8. The council defending Rossendales, failing to comply with the National standard's Code of Practice on the grounds that they are only guidelines. This is despite the council priding itself that they are governed by them in news reports and in response to formal complaints.

I also sent further information regarding several thousand defective summons documents sent out by the council which neither the council nor the Magistrates' court had picked up on. This highlights the fact liability order applications are not being checked by the council or reviewed by the courts' legal advisers. This seems to be of no interest to the LGO, and is probably because it does not fit the rigid criteria necessary for the organisation to be bothered.

Yours sincerely

P. Anchor

1:55 pm
March 20, 2012

Polystyrene Anchor

Member

posts 100

Print this Post

MAJOR CRIME UNIT

Economic Crime Section Hessle Police Station
Hessle Road
HULL
HU47BA

20/03/12

Dear Mr Xxxx

Re: Reporting fake and fraudulent Court Summons

Thank you for your letter of 15 September 2011 acknowledging my letters of 2 and 31 August 2011 and informing me that you had referred the matter to your Legal Services department.

Unless correspondence has gone astray, you have not contacted me further on this issue even though you stated you would do so when you had received advice from your Legal Services' on the matter.

I have further evidence for you to consider regarding the council tax liability order hearing relating to the summons document I enclosed in my 15 May 2011 letter.

Background information

• The council sent out at least 3,359 summonses containing out of date information relating to costs for obtaining a liability order.

• The council had informed the Magistrates' court by letter of its intention to increase summons costs and that there were no longer costs of £25 for a liability order.

Neither the council nor Magistrates' court noticed thousands of documents containing errors; this 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 costs and enforcement fees imposed as a result of the flawed documents would have been incurred unlawfully

It is glaringly obvious that neither the council's court enforcement manager nor the Magistrates courts' legal adviser have paid any attention to over 3,000 summonses issued.

• A decision by magistrates whether to issue a summons pursuant to information laid is not merely administrative and should involve the exercise of a judicial function.

If the Council notified the Court in writing of the increase in costs, it would also have notified them that there were no longer costs of £25 added when the liability order was obtained. However, this had not prevented more than 3,000 of these defective summonses being sent out unnoticed to residents, stating that the council would apply for further costs of £25 if a liability order was granted.

There clearly then, exists in these liability order applications, at least a dereliction of duty, if not a serious case of maladministration when complaints made to the Magistrates' court, in the first instance have not been checked by the council and secondly, the cases had not been reviewed by the courts' legal adviser.

I have concerns additional to this, regarding North East Lincolnshire council's liability order applications; however, I will leave you to consider this additional evidence for now and release more information when you require it.

Could this matter be investigated with the utmost urgency and in the meantime please provide me with a crime number so I'm assured this matter is being looked into.

Yours sincerely

P. Anchor

4:10 pm
March 30, 2012

Polystyrene Anchor

Member

posts 100

Print this Post

Post edited 4:12 pm – March 30, 2012 by Polystyrene Anchor

Local Government
OMBUDSMAN

29 March 2012

Dear Mr Anchor

Complaint against North East Lincolnshire Council

Thank you for your comments on my provisional views in your letter of 21 March 2012 and our subsequent telephone conversation.

I have carefully considered what you have said however you have not given me any new information that persuades me to change my provisional view.

I enclose a copy of my final decision. As required by law, I have also sent a copy to the Council.

Yours sincerely

Investigator

Final Decision

Complaint ref:
Council: North East Lincolnshire Council
Date: 29 March 2012

1. The complaint (As Post 86)

2. The law and the Ombudsman (As Post 86)

3. The law relevant to this complaint (As Post 86)

Council Tax (As Post 86)

Council Tax Recovery (As Post 86)

4. What happened (As Post 86)

Except:

4.3. The Council wrote to Mr X when it did not receive any payments on his Council Tax account. Mr X replied advising the Council that he had paid. Mr X says that he never received a response from the Council asking him for details of his payments.

5. Decision Same as 5. Provisional view (As Post 86)

Mr X's comments on my provisional view

5.5. I have amended paragraph 4.3 of my provisional view as Mr X says that the Council did not ask him for details of his payments until after it applied for a Liability Order. I have not made any finding as to whether the Council did or did not ask Mr X for details of payments before it applied for a Liability Order.

5.6. It was open to Mr X to provide the Council with details of payments without the Council having to ask for them. As set out above in paragraph 5.2 the Council are not at fault for Mr X paying the wrong Council tax bill. It was Mr X's responsibility to make sure that he entered the correct details when paying his Council Tax bill on line.

5.7. Mr X says that the Magistrates Court is to blame for him making payments on the wrong Council Tax bill as it provided him with another person's records. Mr X says that this was a breach of the Data Protection Act 1998.

5.8. The law does not allow the Ombudsman to investigate the actions of the Magistrates Court. If Mr X believes that the Court has breached the Data Protection Act then he should report the matter to the Information Commissioner (http://www.ico.gov.uk). The Information Commissioner is the body set up in law to deal with breaches of that Act.

5.9. Mr X says that the actions of the Magistrates Court contributed to him paying the wrong Council Tax bill and "shouldn't be brushed aside merely because it is considered out of the organisation's remit." As set out above in paragraph 5.6 it was Mr X's responsibility to make sure that he entered the correct details when paying his Council Tax bill online.

5.10. Mr X says that he was subjected to bailiff action. Mr X says that the bailiffs failed to "comply with the National Standard for Enforcement Agent's Code of Practice". Mr X says that the bailiffs also added an unlawful penalty fee.

5.11. The Council has waived bailiff charges incurred by Mr X. I have considered whether Mr X ought to have been subjected to bailiff action in the first instance and whether he has suffered an injustice as a result.

5.12. As set out above in paragraph 5.6, it was open to Mr X to provide the Council with details of payments he had made. When the Council approached Mr X for those details after it was granted a Liability Order he refused to provide any. If Mr X had provided details to the Council at that point it is likely that he would not have been subjected to bailiff action.

5.13. As the Council has waved charges incurred by Mr X as a result of the bailiff and court action I cannot see that there is anything further that can be achieved in investigating this matter further.

6. Conclusion

6.1. I cannot see any evidence of an outstanding injustice to Mr X as a result of the matters he has complained of. For that reason I have decided not to start an investigation into this complaint.

Investigator

On behalf of the Local Government Ombudsman

10:35 pm
April 16, 2012

Polystyrene Anchor

Member

posts 100

Print this Post

Post edited 10:40 pm – April 16, 2012 by Polystyrene Anchor

From: P. Anchor
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 17:55
To: jgreen-jones@rossendales.com
Cc: …..@ nelincs.gov.uk…….
Subject: Reporting Fraud to Police

Dear Ms. Green-Jones

Re: Reporting Fraud to Police

I refer to the article appearing in the Sunday Times of the 8th April 2012, in which your company 'Rossendales' was featured.

It was revealed in the article that an ex-employee, who was caught breaking industry guidelines and branded a rogue debt collector in an undercover television investigation last year is now blowing the whistle on the widespread malpractice in the bailiff industry.

Something interesting I noticed in the article was this, quoted by Rossendales:

"It said it had dismissed Boast in September 2011 and had since made a further complaint to police about his conduct."

Is it company policy to report incidents to the police, each time it's discovered that an employee has defrauded or attempted to defraud an alleged debtor?

Did you do the same when two of your bailiffs, on several occasions attempted to defraud me when enforcing an alleged council tax debt while contracted to North East Lincolnshire council. Or, is it only Rossendales' policy to report incidents to the police when the media is involved as a damage limitation exercise?

Yours sincerely

P. Anchor

12:01 pm
April 26, 2012

Polystyrene Anchor

Member

posts 100

Print this Post

Post edited 12:20 pm – April 26, 2012 by Polystyrene Anchor

Economic Crime Section of Humberside Police

Reply to letter (Post 88)

Further to our previous correspondence I confirm that I have referred the case to our Legal Services Unit.

They have researched your allegation and have advised me that the bulk procedure used by the Council is completely legitimate and the summons has been properly issued.

This is not a matter for the Police. If you still wish to pursue this, please take it up with the County Court.

6:12 pm
May 1, 2012

Polystyrene Anchor

Member

posts 100

Print this Post

Post edited 8:00 pm – May 1, 2012 by Polystyrene Anchor

Local Government Ombudsman
Beverly House
17 Shipton Road
York
YO30 5FZ

Complaint ref: ……..

01/05/12

Dear Sir/Madam

Re: Complaint against North East Lincolnshire Council – Decision appeal

I’m writing concerning the LGO’s 29 March 2012 final decision. After going through all the correspondence relating to this complaint, it is evident that LGO’s Mr Xxxxxx who was assigned this case has demonstrated incompetence equal to the authority itself in conducting an unbiased investigation into the concerns I raised.

The undertaking has been a complete whitewash. Aspects of my complaint have been cherry picked by the investigating officer, leaving a significant part of the complaint completely ignored. This enabled him to focus on what can be manipulated to advantage both the organisation and council and allow the complaint to be ridden out of the system unfounded. This process – involving a technique working on the assumption that the person bringing the complaint was born yesterday – has been instrumental in providing a “get-out-of-jail free” card for the investigator by identifiying that the law won’t allow an investigation.

Several points submitted on my complaint form have at no point been addressed. For example item 6 raised issues about the bailiff visit, querying the Council's Income & Collection Manager’s need to accompany the bailiff. Items 7 and 8 dealt with Rossendale’s non compliance with the National Standard for Enforcement Agent's Code of Practice, and the council’s defendce of its contractor failing to comply.

The unlawful penalty fee I detailed in item 3 of my original complaint has mistakenly been understood to mean an unlawful bailiff fee. I assume this from the brief reference in item 5.10 of the final decision document. I clearly stated that the unlawful penalty fee was explained in the supplied correspondence.

Two of the three documents I provided, “550xxxxxxx – 23 Sept 11” and “Chief Executive stage 3 response 6 Dec 11” went into detail about the council and court’s negligence surrounding liability order applications, more so the latter. Whether or not the law allows the Ombudsman to investigate, the evidence contained should have been alerted to the powers most suitable to investigate, be that the Police, Serious Fraud Office or whatever. I believe these concerns can not simply be ignored just because they fall outside the powers of the Ombudsman to investigate.

The unlawful penalty fee was in fact the summons costs imposed by the council, detailed in items 4 and 6 of the submitted document “Chief Executive stage 3 response 6 Dec 11”.

It seems Mr Xxxxxxx may not have been thorough when considering the contents of the documents I supplied. His final notice, item 5.8 raised the matter of the Magistrates’ court breaching the Data Protection Act, stressing that the Information Commissioner was the body set up in law to deal with breaches of that Act.

There were two references in the “6 Dec 11” document to indicate I had already completed the complaints procedure with the Information Commissioner.

I have also raised concerns with the Parliamentary Ombudsman about the Commissioner’s decision not to take action against the court for breaches of the Data Protection Act, as well as other issues. These include the cour’t negligence in dealing with liability order applications and the Commissioner’s handling of the council’s breaches of the Data Protection Act through its contractor Rossendales. Relating to previous grievances, the Parliamentary Ombudsman is also aware that two Rossendales’ bailiffs while in the employ of the council had attempted to defraud me where the circuit Judge ruled in favour of one of them while dismissing the other complaint because the bailiff no longer worked for the firm.

The seriousness of all these allegations of crime to have just been brushed a side on the basis of something so lame as falling outside the powers of the organisation to investigate is shocking. For all these organisations to have been made aware of the various malpractices and do nothing, amounts to gross negligence.

This is a statement from the Serious Fraud Office where one of the organisations it refers to is the Local Government Ombudsman. I can only speculate why the LGO has not alerted other organisations to the comprehensive evidence I have supplied the Ombudsman over the years.

“…Generally, if these organisations found, through their investigations and with the information provided to them that there was serious or complex fraud that we should look at, then they would usually refer the matter to us…”

Joint investigation

A perfect opportunity had arisen for separate organisations to form joint investigations, encompassing North East Linconshire council abetting Rossendales’ malpractice, HMCTS and the authority’s council tax liabity order applications etc. etc…However, it seemed more convenient to play the “outside the powers of the Ombudsman” card, than to collaborate in a joint operation.

I believe the LGO is presently under the scrutiny of the Communities and Local Government Commons Select Committee. Judging from the written submitted evidence, this is going to be one hell of a grilling and deservedly so.

I’ve read the written evidence submitted to the Select Committee by the Parliamentary Ombudsman which interestingly contained the following:

“Both my Office and the LGO are committed to providing a comprehensive and seamless service to the public wherever possible.A 2007 Regulatory Reform Order empowers our offices to conduct joint investigations, enabling us to work together collaboratively to address the issues raised by the complainant.

This arrangement for handling complaints is increasingly being used with specialist staff in each office working closely together to improve the efficiency of the investigation and the benefit to the member of the public as a result.”

Making an outrageous statement like this makes one to wonder if the Parliamentary and Local Government Ombudsman have any clue about how complaints are dealt with in reality.

Tricks of the trade

Another noticeable pattern in the way LGO staff conduct investigations is when the investigator requests additional evidence in borderline cases. This also works on the assumption that the complainant was born yesterday.

It works like this:

The complainant supplies further information, either to reinforce his case or argue the validity of a complaint that the investigator had preliminarily dismissed. The investigator will have already decided not to pursue the complaint and despite forthcoming valid evidence, will continue regardless with the original decision and concoct his report accordingly.

This has happened in both my complaints to the LGO.

On this occasion the investigator telephoned me seeking to obtain additional information. The conversation turned to the factually incorrect statement contained in his provisional view at item 4.3. The council must have either lied to him or he wrongly assumed the action taken by the Council. The facts were that the council had not asked that I provide details of the account I paid money to in response to my letter explaining I had already made payment.

The investigator it seems had made his decision and the newly acquired facts were not going to get in the way. The truth was that the council had made no such request until after securing costs and the liability order from the court.

He then (as originally intended) could not side with the council and criticise me for not complying with the council’s request to provide details of the account I paid money to. This was not possible as it was a fabrication.

However, there was a solution; the contingency (Plan-B) which he details in items 5.6 and 5.12 of his final view that it was open to me to provide the Council with details of payments without the Council having to ask for them. I wonder what a further contingency would have been (Plan-C) if I’d subsequently provided this evidence.

The document “Council reply 07 Nov”, the third submitted as part of the original evidence detailed the fact I had sent a letter to the council containing my payment details. This complied with the council’s request that I send dates and amounts of payments. This request was not made until the council secured its liability order and costs from the court.

I had gone to the trouble of printing off relevant bank statements. If the investigator had looked at the correspondence he would have noticed I had offered to supply these to the authority.

The investigator played down Grimsby Magistrates’ court’s role in the fiasco. Again item 5.6 of his final view emphasised it was my responsibility to make sure the correct details were entered when paying my Council Tax bill on line.

It would not have been possible to enter these incorrect details if the court had not sent me specific details of other council tax paying residents.

Which Local Government Ombudsman did I submit my complaint to?

I have become confused after reading an information leaflet on the LGO website “Complaints about bailiffs”. I don’t know whether there are two organisations or if the complaints process is just a lottery.

An example is given where a man was compensated for the time spent pursuing a complaint with his council. The matter of complaint, in comparison with mine, appears to be insignificant. However, my complaints did not warrant an invetigation and both dismissed.

Examples of some complaints we have considered

Mr X cleared an outstanding agreed council tax debt (after a court hearing) by sending cheque to council. But the account had already been referred to the council's bailiffs. The council failed to tell the bailiffs that the debt had been cleared. The bailiffs visited Mr X and left a letter at his house (no one was at home). We decided Mr X had been put to unnecessary time and trouble in pursuing his complaint with the council and obtained compensation of £50 for him.

If there was consistency in the way complaints are dealt with, the LGO would now be seeking an amount equivalent to the four years I’ve been pursuing complaints with the council and other organisations without any redress.

It seems officials benefiting from covering up corruption have no conscience or regard for the months, years and in some instances, lifetimes, which are taken from those fighting injustice. Councils protect their reputation at whatever cost and this extends to lying if it will cover up maladministration. I have no idea what the Council's Local Government Ombudsman's Link Officer has communicated to the investigator that would influence his decisions. As such I request you send details of all communications that the council has had with the LGO in connection with the complaint.

The most sensible way forward – taking into account the number of organisations involved – would be for a joint investigation conducted between the PHSO and the LGO. I believe this would have the maximum chance of some resolution to the seemingly endless saga where a repeated pattern occurs of one organisation after the other states that either some or all aspects of the complaint fall outside their powers to investigate.

Details of my complaints to LGO and PHSO:

Local Government Ombudsman

First complaint

Complaint reference: 09014 xxx/…./xx | Investigator: Mr Xxxx Xxxx
Tel: 01904 38…. | Email: ………..lgo.org.uk

Review reference: 09014 xxx/…./xx | Investigator: Mrs Xxxx Xxxx
Tel: 01904 38…. | Email: ………..lgo.org.uk

This complaint

Complaint reference: 11016xxx | Investigator: Xxxx Xxxx
Tel: 01904 38…. | Email: ………..lgo.org.uk

Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

Complaint reference: EN-124xxx/xxxx | Assessor: Xxxx Xxxx
Tel: 0300 061 …. | Email: ……ombudsman.org.uk

Please note this correspondence will also be sent to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman and the Communities and Local Government Commons Select Committee.

Yours sincerely

P. Anchor

10:00 pm
May 6, 2012

Polystyrene Anchor

Member

posts 100

Print this Post

Post edited 10:37 am – May 7, 2012 by Polystyrene Anchor

Humberside Police Headquarters
Priory Police Station
Priory Road
Hull
HU5 5SF

06/05/12

Dear Chief Constable

Re: Decision taken not to investigate allegations of fraud

I have found it necessary to write and express my concerns about Humberside Police’s Economic Crime Section. From my two separate dealings with the section, it appears to be its policy to fob off complaints where allegations of fraud are made against local authorities.

Although relating specifically to Humberside Police, I suspect this policy will be common to all forces in the UK. Nevertheless I would like some assurance that the issue surrounding what seems to be the blanket refusal to investigate the type of crime I’ve twice reported, is looked into.

I’ll not go into a lot of detail surrounding the incidents I reported. In relation to my initial complaint where North East Lincolnshire council attempted to defraud me through its contracted bailiff firm, I have already submitted plenty of details and evidence during the process, including the entirely pointless exercise involving the force’s complaints section and the IPCC.

The incident was dealt with by Detective Inspector Xxxx Xxxx with reference PXX/1x/0x.

The second was dealt with by Detective Sergeant Xxxx Xxxx, the reference being MCU/EXX/MXX and the complaint was in connection with the authority’s council tax liability order applications.

The economic crime section stated this was not a criminal matter despite being advised prior to this decision that I would be submitting additional evidence in relation to the allegations.

I will not make the same mistake of pursuing the second incident through the force’s Complaints section or IPCC.

I have found it to be the case with organisations having complaint procedures formed by statute such as the LGO, ICO and IPCC that they have legislation written so the odds are stacked against the complainant. To begin with, an application would list examples of what would and what wouldn’t be considered a valid complaint. It is bewildering to think that the British public have somehow been indoctrinated to believe that a complaint must conform to some standard for it to be valid and qualify for an organisation’s consideration.

Complaint bodies like these, which dictate to a person what they can and cannot be aggrieve by, are blatantly a sham and therefore, in effect, entirely useless

Chief Inspector Xxxx Xxxx was the person dealing with the initial complaint which progressed to the Professional Standards Branch. The IPCC reference was: 20xx/0x0x0x.

It was concluded that Mr Xxxx would not be recording the incident as a complaint against the Police and stated it was a civil matter between myself and the local authority where the proper authority to deal with such complaints would be the LGO.

It seems whichever organisation you raise concerns with it will be stated that another should have been contacted instead. Incidentally the same complaint was made to the LGO which stated that allegations of crime are to be taken up with the Police.

On 27 April 2007 in the House of Lords, a Home Office Minister stated that “A bailiff or any other person who dishonestly charges for work that has not been done will be committing an offence under the Fraud Act 2006.“

My complaint to the Police fitted the description stated by the Home Office Minister, however it was considered a civil matter by Humberside Police and fobbed off as such at every stage.

I believe each individual Police force has too much autonomy. There is apparently no interest taken by the Home Office in issuing guidance to police forces on the application of the provisions of the Fraud Act 2006 with regards bailiff operations. It considers decisions on whether and how to investigate a crime rest solely with the police and that such operational issues are the ultimate responsibility of the chief officer of the force concerned.

I have no intention in taking the complaint route dictated by the force’s policy with this issue. That has proved completely ineffective in the past. Consequently I would like my concerns to be thoroughly looked into, and some meaningful feedback into the cause of the apparent negligence in investigating the kind of crime I have reported.

Yours sincerely

P. Anchor

5:54 pm
May 11, 2012

Polystyrene Anchor

Member

posts 100

Print this Post