XXXXXXXXXX – Rossendales

[outlawla]

Just had a visit from a Rossendale's bailiff for council tax. Refused to speak to him other than ask for his name and give my opinion that he was a parasite and worked for crooks.

 

APPEARANCE: Thug like (him not me)

 

Left notice: YES

 

Left notice of incurred visit fee: NO

 

Left notice of future visit fee: NO

 

On his own? NO (with council employee)

 

In a thuggish tone and manner, he commanded I should speak to him like a man when I walked off to visit the council about their use of XXXXXXXX bailiff firm Rossendales.

 

RESPONSE AT THE COUNCIL:

 

Receptionist said once the case is with bailiff they have nothing to do with it. I sympathised with her and let her know that I realised she had been given this script but I wanted to see someone at the council who is responsible for Rossendales. Similar response was had from a manager, who I explained to, that the only way I would be leaving the council offices without seeing somebody would be with a police escort. I eventually spoke to someone about their use of crooked bailiff firm Rossendales. (Don't let them fob you off).

 

The bailiff's name on the notice, and confirmed by the council is XXXXXXXXX

 

Checked the Certificated bailiffs register but he doesn't appear. I know this is not always up to date, so does anyone know of him or have any idea if he is a Certificated bailiff?

 

EDIT:

With the amount of editing out of this thread, there doesn't seem to be much point in leaving any of it.

Edited August 18, 2011 by outlawla

[wonkeydonkey]

We all understand you are in a state of fury as most of us have been brought to fever pitch by bailiffs at some point (otherwise we wouldn't be here)

don't let them have the upper hand calm down and give us all a chance to help you by re-writing your thread to conform with the rules of Cag.

 

WD

[outlawla]

Thank you WD, I've calmed down now.

 

I'll try to salvage something from this post by sharing, with whoever might be interested, my utter contempt for how local authorities deal with formal complaints about their appointed bailiffs.

 

“North East Lincolnshire Council's Response to the Stage 1 formal complaint.

 

Original complaint text in blue:

 

Mr.Outlawla

xx Xxxx Xxxx Xxxx

North East Lincolnshire

 

Dear Mr Outlawla

 

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

 

You state that:

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Name Bxxxxx Xxxx

Court Burnley Combined Court Centre - Certificate Granted 21/07/2011

Certificate expires 20/07/2013 - Employer Rossendales Ltd

 

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

 

Quote:

 

“National Standards for Enforcement Agents

 

Information and confidentiality

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

After giving full consideration your complaint is not upheld.

 

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

 

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

 

Yours faithfully

 

 

X Xxxxxxxx

 

Debt Recovery Manager”

[outlawla]

To catch up with events regarding North East Lincolnshire Council and their bailiffs pursuing me for council tax I've already paid, here's an update.

 

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

 

 

After a series of letters to the council and a visit to the council offices ending in confrontation which also resulted in them reporting me to the Police, this was sent to them which seemed to curb the council's threats.

 

19/09/11

 

Strategic Director Governance and Transformation

 

Dear Mr Xxxxx

 

Re: Your Behaviour and Actions Towards Officers of the Council

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Yours sincerely

 

Outlawla

 

 

The second contact from Rossendales was sent in the post and went like this:

 

Client: North East Lincolnshire Council – Council Tax

Our Ref: 058x75x0

Client Ref: 5501x16x83

Outstanding Liability Order Value: £965.41

 

FINAL REMINDER – DO NOT IGNORE

 

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

 

Dear Sir/Madam

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

08447 01 x9 x0

 

NO FURTHER REMINDERS WILL BE ISSUED

 

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

 

Yours faithfully,

 

Bailiff Manager

 

 

This is odd, they are not maxing out their fees. Only one bailiff visit means only one fee. Are they just going through the motions knowing that they will not receive a penny from me?

 

Anyway the next letter received on 29 September went like this:

 

 

ROSSENDALES

Wavell House

Rossendale

 

No Date

 

Dear Mr Outlawla

 

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

 

Regards

 

This is a mystery, no explanation from either Rossendales or the council as to why they've stopped harassing me.

 

I've had no explanation whatsoever why enforcement has apparently ceased or if they are going for a custodial sentence. The last correspondence regarding this was the above letter from Rossendales towards the end of September.

Edited November 5, 2011 by outlawla

[outlawla]

An interesting development and a "sort of" admission from North East Lincolnshire council that I did actually pay my Council Tax after all.

 

North East Linconshire Council

CivicOffices

Knoll Street,

Cleethorpes

DN35 8LN

 

 

Dear Mr Outlawla

 

Your recent correspondence

 

Thank you for your letters dated 7th November 2011.

 

Re: Fake and Fraudulent Court summons

 

These points were answered in our response to your freedom of information request 201xxxxx in May this year. That response remains unchanged.

 

Re: Payments to council tax 550xxxxxxx.

 

I am not aware that we have received the letter you refer to dated 10th October 2011

 

By investigations undertaken within the council and banks I now have proof that these payments are yours. They will be allocated to your account. In future please ensure your payments use reference 550xxxxxxx.

 

The council receives hundreds of payments a day. Allocation of these payments is made by using the references supplied. If that reference is incorrect but valid the money be allocated to that account reference and remain there. Your payments had been posted to the valid account reference you quoted until our investigations raised a question regarding their ownership. At this point the payments were put into a suspense account whilst it was established to which account they should correctly be allocated.

 

You are correct that payments with invalid references will be put to a suspense account. You are mistaken in your belief that the suspense account must be resolved each month. Every effort is made to correctly allocate payments from the suspense account as soon as possible.

 

As the payments you made were under a valid account number I cannot give you documentary evidence of these without breaching the data protection act as the account details do not relate to you.

 

Yours Sincerely

 

X Xxxxx

 

Court Enforcement Manager

[brassnecked]

So they admit you don't owe them then outlawa? If so will they call Rossers off, and deny them their fees, or will rossers take it on themselves to go after their possiblyn wrongful fees

[outlawla]

brassnecked,

 

Rossers were called off (#4), I think they already realised something a while back but didn't bother to let me know until 100%.

 

I suppose some explanation will follow.....and pigs might...

[brassnecked]

brassnecked,

 

Rossers were called off (#4), I think they already realised something a while back but didn't bother to let me know until 100%.

 

I suppose some explanation will follow.....and pigs might...

 

In the back of my twisted mind I don't think a bailiff ever thinks they are called off, and wait in the hope the council will unleash them again

[seanamarts]

Well it looks like another council has mucked up again, but instead of apologies they place the blame somewhere else. Very typical, but well done for holding your ground

[outlawla]

Well it looks like another council has mucked up again, but instead of apologies they place the blame somewhere else. Very typical, but well done for holding your ground

 

Is there any wonder councils are universally despised.

 

I reckon the council had known something for a while and just evaded the issue in the hope the embarrassing incident would go away. That would explain calling off Rossendales in September.

 

They’ve implied I submitted incorrect details to the bank to instruct payment for council tax.

 

If a reference number has mistakenly been filled in – how come the number just happened to be a valid account reference number?

 

These are 10 figure reference numbers; it would need to be one hell of a coincidence for this to occur wouldn't it?

 

They don't mention how long it took them to question the misplaced payments and when they were transferred to the suspense account. Though, regardless of when this was exactly, they had managed to send out threatening letters, take court action and appoint bailiffs to collect a debt that didn't exist, before anything twigged.

 

On checking both bank accounts used to pay council tax instalments, both have incorrect reference numbers applied to the payment instruction. But even more odd is both account references are wrong with different wrong numbers.

 

Ironically the reason the council will not tell me where my payments went i.e. it would "breach the data protection act", is the very reason why I entered incorrect reference numbers in the first place.

 

Grimsby Magistrates' court carelessly sent me council tax details of several other residents after requesting information relating to Liability Orders. The irony is that I complained to the ICO (Information Commissioners Office) about a breach of the Data protection Act regarding this.

 

Incidentally the ICO did not regard my complaint worthy of taking any formal action against HMCS nor did it think the serious issues I raised previously about Rossendales breaching the Data Protection Act were regarded sufficiently serious to warrant any action.

 

These details, i.e. council tax reference numbers must have been lying around and to hand, and would explain why they were mistakenly entered in my bank payment instructions.

 

All I can say for the moment is the council takes the handling of personal data more seriously than HMCS.

 

Some background:

 

Rossendales breached the Data protection Act a year or two ago when trying to enforce alleged council tax debt for North East Lincolnshire council. They left notices outside the communal entrance to my property; basically anyone passing could have intercepted them and probably did.

 

I complained to the ICO about them breaching the DPA. They dragged the case out endlessly and finally closed the case saying it was my word against theirs and would not take any action against them.

 

Second dealing with the ICO about breaches of confidentiality was this document sent to me from the Magistrates' court. I asked for documentary evidence of the Liability Order relating to first time NELC took me to court. The court sent several papers and one of them carelessly had written on it several names and corresponding council tax references.

 

The ICO again closed the case and took no formal action about the court breaching the DPA, despite me appealing to their decision, which I also did on the first complaint. Incidentally the council, LGO, ICO, court and Police were negligent and all turned a blind eye to accusations of Rossendale's attempt to defraud me.

 

Ultimately the cause of the misplaced payments were down to the court sending me details of other peoples council tax references which I mistakenly used when paying my instalments through internet banking.

 

I have effectively been paying council tax into two other resident’s accounts for several months. But miraculously, the council hadn’t picked up on this.

 

Just shows what mayhem can occur when these organisations don’t do what the taxpayer pays them to do.

 

All the events in this saga....

Edited November 25, 2011 by outlawla

[wonkeydonkey]

Outlawla:

 

I salute you, what can I say ...your dedication to showing these authorities are indeed corrupt is nothing less than admirable.

 

WD

[outlawla]

wonkeydonkey,

 

Each time I read about:

 

i) Bailiff fraud being ignored or even defended by councils,

ii) Local authorities being obstructive,

iv) Councils beating their chest, after successfully prosecuting pensioners and subjecting them to imprisonment or curfew orders, or

iii) I read propaganda written by council spokespersons in the press about how the "majority law abiding citizens are subsidising council tax payers who either don't pay or are late paying their council tax"

 

makes me more determined to see these council bosses – responsible for the largest scale fraud operations and who benefit most from this abuse – are where they belong; eating porridge and wearing arrowed suits.

[brassnecked]

wonkeydonkey,

 

Each time I read about:

 

i) Bailiff fraud being ignored or even defended by councils,

ii) Local authorities being obstructive,

iv) Councils beating their chest, after successfully prosecuting pensioners and subjecting them to imprisonment or curfew orders, or

iii) I read propaganda written by council spokespersons in the press about how the "majority law abiding citizens are subsidising council tax payers who either don't pay or are late paying their council tax"

 

makes me more determined to see these council bosses – responsible for the largest scale fraud operations and who benefit most from this abuse – are where they belong; eating porridge and wearing arrowed suits.

 

Outlawa, one of my law lecturers in uni, had a fixation with white collar crime and corporates getting away with things, his take was that it was entrenched in the system, the system is intrinsically wrong, but the powers that be are too afraid of the fall out from the public, and the undermining of confidence (what confidence) in the "system" that they will never address this gross and flagrant law breaking. After all they would have to build more prisons to house these corporate and legalised gangsters.

 

Now where's that load of bricks cement and a trowel.........

[outlawla]

...Now where's that load of bricks cement and a trowel.........

 

HaHaHaHa, now there's a project I should imagine very few recipients of Community Payback Sentences would object to being ordered to undertake.

[brassnecked]

HaHaHaHa, now there's a project I should imagine very few recipients of Community Payback Sentences would object to being ordered to undertake.

 

First people I would put in my new jail built and sorted by Community payback workers learning the trades under good qualified tradespeople would be a certain Justice Secretary, and Mr Boast among others

[outlawla]

REPLY TO CHIEF EXECUTIVE'S DISMISSIVE RESPONSE TO FINAL STAGE FORMAL COMPLAINT

 

 

Chief Executive

Municipal Offices

Town Hall Square

Grimsby

 

04/12/11

 

Dear CEO

 

Re: Complaint: NEL/xxxxxx/12 Council tax 550xxxxxxx

 

In true time honoured tradition the council has again managed to sign off, across-the-board as unfounded, a series of valid criticisms raised through their seemingly pointless formal complaints procedure. Why though, am I not surprised this complaint process turned out to be a sham? I suppose when the organisation is headed by a corporate climber with the honesty of a used car salesman and morals of an alley cat what would you expect?

 

Wouldn’t public relations be your expertise as chief executive and your role within the company be promoting the image of the council, i.e, bull****ting the press or doing the same in TV appearances? The logical question that follows then would be why you have been let loose with an undertaking requiring judgment and impartiality.

 

Your final stage response has been consistent with the initial stage conducted by the Debt Recovery Manager ___ ___, in being an almost word for word account which was an all-out denial that the council and its crooked firm of bailiffs are at fault.

 

Stage two, conducted by the council’s court enforcement manager ___ ___, was consistent with his last attempt to tackle one of these complaints – he must have been assigned it for the purpose of gaining experience in this field.

 

I can therefore conclude no further improvement has been made in ‘this attempt’, to the way previous complaints have been handled where Rossendales have been at its heart.

 

The mishandling of these complaints reveals just how prevalent corruption is within North East Lincolnshire council. It is enough that residents suffer the violation of criminal enforcement firms used by the council, but for the authority – to go unregulated in its biased handling of these grievances – is a further kick in the teeth.

 

1. Account being passed to bailiffs

 

Your response to item one “Account being passed to bailiffs”: Throughout all stages of the complaint, this has never been addressed. The council’s revenues and benefits department has been grossly negligent in failing to learn lessons from previously raised issues regarding Rossendales acting for NELC, where it was revealed they resorted to unlawful practices while attempting to collect alleged council tax debt.

 

The point was completely missed at stage one with the attention being diverted from the actual complaint about NELC’s appointment of crooked enforcement firm Rossendales. ___ ___ took it upon herself to introduce a completely irrelevant issue and gave some smug lecture in how by communicating with the council about my Council Tax arrears, my account could have been avoided being passed to Rossendales.

 

Despite my council tax payments in fact being up to date, the council’s Debt Recovery Manager went on to give an ultimatum – also irrelevant to the complaint – which warned bailiff action would resume, if I failed to “contact them regarding payment or send evidence to the council showing proof of payment.”

 

If you had bothered to take your responsibilities seriously and responded to my complaint accordingly, you would not have made such idiotic references to stage one or the equally idiotic response of ____ ____’s stage two effort regarding my account being passed to bailiffs.

 

A letter from the council dated 9 June 2011 had already threatened that if I failed to clear my arrears within 14 days the matter would be referred to the council’s appointed bailiffs.

 

Another letter of 27 July 2011 requested details of the dates and amounts I had paid funds to the council. The letter was in connection with a statement I made at the Mickey Mouse Magistrates’ court hearing of 2 June 2011 where I clearly explained that I had paid the disputed Council Tax through internet banking. This was in addition to a letter I sent dated 21 April 2011 requesting the council stop sending their automated threatening letters as I had in fact paid – in advance of the due-by date – all I owed to the council.

 

There is something profoundly wrong with a council’s recovery department that invokes court action for literally thousands of residents. 3,359 householders receiving council tax summonses accounted for just one court hearing scheduled at 2pm on 2 June 2011 at Grimsby’s Magistrates’ court. This makes up only one of typically several bogus court hearings conducted throughout the year which sees on average half a million pounds taken from NEL residents.

 

Through the council’s own admission the local authority has in the last 5 years obtained hundreds of liability orders through the Magistrates’ court for debt outstanding to the council of less then £15. For debt outstanding under £100, more than six and a half thousand, and liability orders for only 1p have even been sought.

 

This is clearly an indication that neither the Magistrates’ court nor the council’s recovery department is functioning lawfully; however, the additional revenue obtained from caught out residents must suit both parties.

 

The council – evidently without need to question it – has complete confidence in its automated system, which puts forward details of who should be pursued through the court. The arrangement is complimented by the court, whose negligence leads to it accepting without question the word of the council, despite case law that states "a decision by magistrates whether to issue a summons pursuant to information laid involves the exercise of a judicial function, and is not merely administrative."

 

Statistics relating to the trivially small outstanding balances sought through the court provides overwhelming evidence that the council does not meet its obligation which requires council’s recovery staff to check the accuracy of all accounts before processing them to the enforcement stage.

 

Incidentally, I had not defaulted on my council tax payments; I had 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 Rossendale’s bailiffs and incurred their fees.

 

August 18 was the first dealing I had with Rossendales at which time I made it clear to both the bailiff and the council’s Income & Collection Manager that I would not be communicating with any employee representing the criminal enforcement firm Rossendales. The meeting which followed with the Income & Collection Manager would be the other occasion that you and others involved in this complaints process have referred to how my account could have been avoided being passed to Rossendales.

 

It was in this meeting and also my stage 2 letter that I stated I would take pleasure in refusing to assist the council locate my payments; I had after all paid in accordance with the Council Tax Regulations.

 

The council had up to that point 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 not least in its corrupt complaints process, exposed me to the horrifying corruption that exists within councils which has in turn exposed me to the equally horrifying Police corruption and that which exists in supposedly independent organisations like the Citizens Advice Bureau, Local Government Ombudsman and Information Commissioners Office.

 

If you still have cause to wonder why I decided they get on with it without my assistance, then I seriously question what effect the obscene publicly funded salary has on your soundness of mind.

 

All of this is irrelevant to my original complaint because although it dealt with my account being passed to bailiffs, it has been taken largely out of context as my complaint clearly emphasised the objection to the council allocating my case to a firm of bailiffs which systematically resorts to illegal methods of enforcement and had in fact previously attempted to defraud me on several occasions.

 

A point worth bringing to your attention is that made by the council’s court enforcement manager in his stage 2 response in which he stated “It is our decision which bailiff company we instruct.” I just hope by this he wasn’t implying that the council are so arrogant they would use a notoriously criminal enforcement firm in preference to one which acted within the law to effect a greater degree of intimidation.

 

2. The council's income and collection manager

 

 

All I can say is you've got more front than Brighton, Blackpool and Dolly Parton put together. You know – as do various Income & Payments Service staff members familiar with this debacle – why the council’s Income & Collection Manager accompanied the Rossendale’s bailiff on his visit to my home.

 

The supervision of the bailiff was to prevent a repeat performance where a Rossendale’s bailiff attempted to defraud me by charging for visits to my home he did not make.

 

 

In debt enforcement circles this is known as a “phantom visit” and is one of the “tricks of the trade” employed by NELC’s appointed bailiff firm Rossendales to defraud residents. The council continually denies this practice goes on and its reaction to the highlighted problem comes in the form of – as is so often the case – meaningless generic responses like “I can advise you that Rossendale's fees are set by statute and that they are governed by National Standards for Enforcement Agents”, or “the council’s use of bailiffs and collection agencies is closely managed through appropriate and robust governance by the departments within the council who employ their services” or “Rossendales have acted within government guides lines and followed legislation correctly when setting fees.” This is so lame and demonstrates that the council has no interest in addressing the complaint, much preferring the cop-out option and concentrating their attention on protecting its reputation.

 

Rossendale’s malpractice has been widely publicised in the press and on TV. Your refusal to acknowledge the failings of your appointed bailiff must be getting embarrassing for the authority and clearly are running out of excuses. This leaves me to say once more that you can’t say I haven’t warned you that North East Lincolnshire Council has been informed about Rossendale’s involvement in criminal activity.

 

 

I note you have been selective in addressing issues you are comfortable with. I recall making the observation that bailiffs do in fact come at a cost to the council, particularly as it is necessary forcouncil staff to supervise them. This contradicts local authorities’ argument for their use which is that bailiff companies come at no cost to the council as they collect fees direct from the debtor.

 

On a similar point, I’d argue there is significant cost to the council attributable to the time taken in resolving the thousands of disputes which must originate from the council’s appointed bailiff’ malpractice.

 

This further goes to show that the council are unable or unwilling to address any issue unless it conveniently falls into some rigid category with an accompanying one fits-all generic solution, deliverable as a stand alone or slightly adapted response.

 

3. National standards for enforcement agents

 

You stated in your response:

 

“It is your opinion that the "Notice of bailiffs attendance" does not comply with National standards for enforcement agents. This point has already been answered in some detail as part of our stage one response, which makes it clear that these are guidelines only. These can be viewed on the following web page and includes the following statement "This national guidance does not replace local agreements, existing agency codes of practice or legislation".

 

Perhaps you should have taken the time to assess this complaint yourself rather than reiterate the Debt Recovery Manager’s response given in stage 1.

 

I am in fact familiar with the National standard’s code of practice. This, I would have thought obvious as I’ve already quoted relevant guidance from the code. What I assume you didn’t bank on was that I might refresh myself with its contents, especially as you had quoted from the code yourself to reinforce a decision not to uphold the complaint.

 

It appears you have quoted out of context; selecting craftily only half of the following paragraph – that which advantages the council’s argument.

 

“This national guidance does not replace local agreements, existing agency codes of practice or legislation; rather it sets out what the Department, those in the industry and some major users regard as minimum standards.”

 

It‘s clear why you included the incomplete statement and further demonstrates to what depths you will sink, and your commitment to rule out at all cost, accusations of maladministration. Your part quoted section, when read in full context, discredits the council’s defense of Rossendales in its failure to comply with the code. Implying, as I’m sure you are doing, that local agreements take precedence over the National standard’s code is misleading, as it in fact states, that the guidelines should be regarded “as minimum standards.”

 

You have as did ____ ____ in his stage 2 response, failed to address or add comment to the point made which exposed employees of North East Lincolnshire council as dishonest, two-faced, devious weasels. To pride itself as they do at every opportunity, that Rossendales "are governed by the National Standard for Enforcement Agents", and for the council to then state “these are guidelines and not regulations” as a “get-out” for not following them, defies belief.

 

This is testament that the council’s formal complaint process is merely an exercise in giving complainants the brush-off and has no other objective than to determine any grievances as unfounded. Investigating itself is unlikely to be executed in a fair and unbiased way which can only lead to the council seeking to protect itself from reputational risk or legal challenge. Therefore I’d say there’s a desperate need for these complaints to be conducted independently.

 

4. Prevention of accounts being passed to Rosendale's by contacting the council

 

I will be submitting an additional formal complaint now the council has finally admitted I had in fact paid my Council Tax instalments in the lead up to my prosecution for non-payment in the Magistrates’ court.

 

This of course is a separate issue but will likely implicate the court and the Information Commissioners Office, just in case you are not already aware of the other parties who have also contributed to this fiasco.

 

Consequently your observation has no validity where you state “As the debt on your account was in the order of £940.91 it was correctly progressed for recovery.”

 

It’s more than likely the council was aware that I had not defaulted on my council tax well before 29 September 2011 – the date I received a letter from Rossendales informing me that my account with them had ”been closed, at North East Lincolnshire Councils request.” However, this didn’t stop ____ ____ responding on 6 October 2011 to my stage 2 complaint with no acknowledgement they had discovered my payments.

 

You are clearly oblivious to the seriousness of the council’s cavalier approach in squeezing additional revenue from a significant proportion of council tax paying citizens. This makes the authority no better than the criminal bailiff firm that goes on to defraud residents as a consequence of irresponsible court action.

 

If the data I quoted from the council’s Freedom of Information response was presented correctly then your explanation for why trivially small debts can be referred to the court after checking has been carried out, doesn’t hold water.

 

1. Total Liability Orders issued on Ctax accounts with initial debt under £100.00 (Includes under £10.00)

 

Total LO's

 

2006/07 – 1205

2007/08 – 1255

2008/09 – 1374

2009/10 – 1304

2010/11 – 1442

 

2. Total Liability Orders issued on Ctax accounts with initial debt under £10.00

 

Year Total LO's

2006/07 – 20

2007/08 – 24

2008/09 – 18

2009/10 – 7

2010/11 – 13

 

Note: A total of 3,528 Liability Orders were issued for initial debt of £50 or less.

You 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. If payments are made after the account has been sent to the court to request a liability order, the final balance that the order is issued for may be less.

 

You introduce Freedom of information (FOI) data relating to the small levels of debt collected through Liability Orders. The above statement explains how small debts of this nature can be referred after checking has been carried out. We have noted your concerns regarding these issues.”

 

Clearly the FOI response was worded such that the Liability Order amounts, in fact, correspond to the “initial debt”. This by all logical reasoning would be the figure that should have been checked by the council’s collection team prior to them being passed for enforcement. If the council’s supplied data is correct then 3,528 Liability Orders were passed to the enforcement stage for the relevant period which relate to an outstanding debt of £50 or less.

 

Let’s assume the data does correspond to the amounts outstanding at the time Magistrates issued the Liability Orders. Even then both HMCTS and the councils’ Court Enforcement Manager(s) have been negligent for allowing residents to be prosecuted for what clearly does not present itself as non-payment.

 

I’m told the cost of enforcing council tax exceeds the revenue generated in penalties. I can’t, no matter how imaginatively I approach the concept, believe that to be true. However, if the council truthfully believes this unbalance exists, why are no steps being taken to reduce the thousands of cases passed for enforcement relating to accounts which obviously do not pose any risk of default?

 

I’ll stick with my strongly held belief that the council does make very hefty profits from this irresponsible exploitation of “The Law” and a substantial reduction in these numbers would not in fact be welcomed by the council, HMCTS or the government.

 

Just a little arrogant don’t you think, that you should state:

 

“As previously stated in your stage two response it is the council's decision to instruct whichever bailiff's they wish and as a council we currently use Rosendale's for all council tax debt recovery.”

 

especially as it is widely publicised that this company have more than a little difficulty keeping their operations within the law.

 

5. Bailiff contact

 

Again you have not bothered to put any of your own input into the response, preferring the lazier option of reiterating the opinions given in stages I and 2.

 

You really should – and this also applies to your Income & Collection department staff – find out what you are talking about before making these statements.

 

The position with regards the office number has already been explained with no apparent evidence that it had even registered. To labour the point, I made it clear that in a similar way to how the council operates; Rossendale’s office staff dealing with bailiff queries will have been instructed to be as obstructive as possible. In council tradition, staff manning phones at Rossendale’s offices will not offer any assistance and will instruct callers to contact the bailiff.

 

6. Council's response not relevant to complaint

 

You have taken the opportunity to justify what is effectively another criminal act. In contrast to abetting Rossendales to defraud residents through their enforcement practices, the issue here is unlawfully increasing penalties associated with council tax recovery to plug a hole in their budgetas appose to meeting actual recovery costs.

 

There is overwhelming evidence that the council have pulled this stunt before, but this time it has pushed its luck just one step to far by flouting – in two instances – the very regulations they in fact call upon to prosecute residents.

 

The authority has flouted the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations by raising income through penalties for purposes other than funding enforcement costs. It has also breached them by unifying the existing summons and liability order fees into one item; a scheming maneuver which will net far more income than the suggested 23% increase in overall penalties.

 

North East Lincolnshire Council has on its website several documents listing proposed savings, intended to plug the hole in the council’s finances. As an example “Budget Appendix 6 - OBC's.pdf” proposes to "Increase summons cost" under a heading “income generation”.

 

The document explains how projected savings of £188,000 for each of the following 4 years is possible. In other words the council has forecasted an additional £752,000 can be obtained from struggling households caught out by late council tax payments in this period, if it combined the existing summons and liability order fees into one item and increase the overall penalty charge by 23%, which it did in April 2011.

 

Such fees are to cover costs incurred by the Council Tax recovery process, not constitute savings by way of income generation.

 

It is stated in Regulation 34 of the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations – (5)(b) for costs relating to Summonses, and (7)(b) for Liability Orders – that the taxpayer incurring these penalties should be the sum of an amount equal to the costs reasonably incurred by the authority/applicant. It doesn’t state that these penalties can be increased to create an additional revenue stream.

 

In essence, the council can not profit from recovery, hence “costs reasonably incurred”, but plainly this is exactly what the authority are doing, not least by the unjustified hike. Unifying the summons and liability order charges means that the procedure set out in Regulation 34 for applying for a liability order is longer followed by the authority.

 

The council should be charging separately at the summons and liability order stages. The defunct liability order fee which is now incorporated in the single penalty is now incurred prematurely by all residents at stage one. This unlawful cost will potentially be incurred by many not even having a court order made against them.

 

It’s bizarre that local authorities are preoccupied with rooting out benefit and council tax fraud and actively encourage anyone suspecting instances of this to report it to the council; they even have dedicated fraud hotline telephone numbers for this purpose.

 

Ironically, the council is defrauding council taxpayers to a far greater degree than those you wish to parade on the front pages of the press. In fact you as CEO of the council and the officers responsible for implementing these penalties should be doing 10 year stretches for the £millions unlawfully obtained from struggling council tax payers.

 

You go on and account for the costs, associated with the recovery process. You compare penalty fees with national averages for unitary authorities and neighbouring councils which come out favourably for NELC. This is dodging the issue of how these costs are determined.

 

Incidentally I notice you are at it again with your selective quoting. It may be that our neighbouring council's, Hull and East Riding charge £80, (unlawfully in one penalty) but if you had quoted North Lincolnshire council this wouldn’t have had the impact you were after, as they charge £65 total for summonses and liability orders, with the added bonus that they conform to the council tax regulations that state fees should be incurred in two stages, £55 and £10 for that authority.

 

You have reinforced the commonly held view that the setting of fees are not based on actual costs but on what other authorities charge or what the council thinks it can get away with. It is too convenient for a council to justify raising cash to plug a hole in its finances or compensate for council made blunders, just because it is cheaper than another.

 

The list you have supplied to account for recovery costs doesn’t really do it:

 

· the cost for the use of the court

· the wages of the staff employed to collect Council Tax and Business Rates

· ICT costs

· postage

 

The only things given away in this list are:

 

1. An admission that the Magistrates’ court hearing is bogus as you suggest the court is hired by the council; my understanding of a court case is one where the court conducts the hearing, not those who bring about the complaint to the court.

 

2. The council aims to cover the entire cost of administrating its council tax and business rate operations with income obtained from council tax payers caught out with these penalties.

 

3. The council’s computer systems are in continual need of replacement.

 

A more comprehensive attempt to account for recovery costs was made as per the following:

 

The annual budget for all activity associated with recovery of Council Tax and Business rates amounts to approximately £1.1 million.

 

2011/12 Revenues budget (debt recovery)

 

A0184 Control & Monitoring

Total revenue expenditure budget – £507,000

(£) recharged income – £0

Percentage recovery work – 20%

Cost attributable CT recovery – £101,400

 

A0187 Debt Collection

Total revenue expenditure budget – £738,500

(£) recharged income – (£121,800)*

Percentage recovery work – 100%

Cost attributable CT recovery – £616,700

 

A0191 Council Tax

Total revenue expenditure budget – £826,900

(£) recharged income – £0

Percentage recovery work – 50%

Cost attributable CT recovery – £413,450

 

Total £1,131,550

 

*cost of sundry debt collection recharged to other directorates

You can see this doesn’t represent an itemised breakdown providing evidence that the cost of court action taken against each resident would total £70.

 

Obvious inconsistencies can be spotted immediately and point to these figures, being supplied with the intention of confusing anyone trying to decipher them. Firstly it states that the figures specifically relate to all activity associated with recovery of Council Tax and Business rates. It goes on and describes the 2011/12 Revenues budget figures as more generally "debt recovery". Finally it states that the figures are attributable only to council tax recovery.

 

It is unclear what recovery these figures actually represent. It's unclear if VAT paid to bailiff companies, which can be reclaimed make up any of these figures.

 

There is no explanation why £616,700 is attributable to debt collection when no payment is supposedly made to bailiff companies by the council.

 

There is nothing explaining why 20% and 50% represent the proportion of costs attributable to recovery with the categories, 'Control and Monitoring' and 'Council Tax', or for that matter the significance of these categories with regards their budgets.

 

We seem to be a long way from getting the true costs incurred by the authority for the recovery of council tax and business rates.

 

There have been developments regarding my council tax account since your response, i.e. the council has admitted my payments where in fact paid in accordance with the council tax regulations. This has many implications, for example the council should not have summoned me to the court, the court should not have granted a liability order, the council should not have instructed Rossendales to collect a non-debt etc etc. It will therefore be necessary to submit another formal complaint to establish how it was possible that events could have escalated to these levels.

 

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

Outlawla

 

More detail here

Edited December 5, 2011 by outlawla

[brassnecked]

Well what can one say, they deserve everything that is coming to them Outlawa. BTW did rossers try to enforce for their fees AFTER the council miraculously found the lost payments?

[outlawla]

Well what can one say, they deserve everything that is coming to them Outlawa. BTW did rossers try to enforce for their fees AFTER the council miraculously found the lost payments?

 

I'd say they'd discovered the payments long before they let on (called off Rotters in September). The council have gone very very quite about this. They will, or should be embarrassed, and no doubt will want to keep the reputational damage to a minimum. I'd be surprised if I hear anything more from Rossendales about their fees, or in fact from the council about the Summons and Liability Order penalties. More likely they will be concentrating their efforts in concocting some Cock and Bull story to slime their way out of this.

[brassnecked]

I'd say they'd discovered the payments long before they let on (called off Rotters in September). The council have gone very very quite about this. They will, or should be embarrassed, and no doubt will want to keep the reputational damage to a minimum. I'd be surprised if I hear anything more from Rossendales about their fees, or in fact from the council about the Summons and Liability Order penalties. More likely they will be concentrating their efforts in concocting some Cock and Bull story to slime their way out of this.

 

Well they picked on the wrong one to cock up with, they normally use the threats, and intimidation coupled with a criminal level of incompetence, to face anyone off AND try to ensure it is hidden away, the victim silenced, AND they keep their criminal proceeds.

 

At the very least, the Head of Revenue and some of the staff are guilty of "Misfeance in Public Office" an offence that carries jailtime if I am correct. Gross incompetence at the least that would get a private sector worker sacked.

 

Well done Outlawa, keep kicking them until they confess all, then kick them some more.

[wonkeydonkey]

Outlawa

 

I love a good argument but even I would be hard placed to give one in reply to the above letters!!

 

My sewing machine is sitting idle....hmmmm prison 'uniforms' for inmates ..... designs on a postcard please!

 

WD

[freddie b]

Very enlightening!!! I have been reading a lot recently and am thinking more and more that it's no wonder the bailiffs are they way they are, most of the councils they mainly work for are frighteningly incompetent and just after money. No one seems interested in the people who are actually paying that money and keeping the councils going.......

It's high time that people started kicking up a fuss and letting the rest of the world know exactly what these systems are like. Most people think that bailiffs are called in after years of non payment for thousands and that the person deserves all they get. Most people know that bailiffs are rough and scary and intimidating but genuinely believe that councils only employ them to chase the 'won't pay' not the 'can't pay'. My mum thought this - after being intimidated repeatedly by a bailiff she told me it was my fault as I should have dealt with the council earlier if I couldn't pay and they'd have helped (when I stopped laughing) I showed her the paperwork that pointed to me missing one instalment on that years council tax, and the following demands and she was shocked.

 

But how can it be done? How can the system be changed? I would honestly love to know and help because this is so wrong, all the stories on here can't be wrong, all the stories on other sites can't be wrong - there is a problem!

[outlawla]

Well they picked on the wrong one to cock up with, they normally use the threats, and intimidation coupled with a criminal level of incompetence, to face anyone off AND try to ensure it is hidden away, the victim silenced, AND they keep their criminal proceeds.

 

At the very least, the Head of Revenue and some of the staff are guilty of "Misfeance in Public Office" an offence that carries jailtime if I am correct. Gross incompetence at the least that would get a private sector worker sacked.

 

Well done Outlawa, keep kicking them until they confess all, then kick them some more.

 

 

Outlawa

 

I love a good argument but even I would be hard placed to give one in reply to the above letters!!

 

My sewing machine is sitting idle....hmmmm prison 'uniforms' for inmates ..... designs on a postcard please!

 

WD

 

For the purpose of estimating the quantity of material needed for the inmate uniforms, I would guess that at least 5 officers could be implicated for the penalty charge added to struggling council taxpayers bills. Add the leader and CEO of the council and we have 7. Adopting a similar principle to the bakers dozen, lets say 8.

 

We know all councils are almost carbon copies of each other, so for the 475 local authorities in England and Wales, I'd say material – and a corresponding number of buttons and arrows – for 3,800 units should be ample.

[outlawla]

Very enlightening!!! I have been reading a lot recently and am thinking more and more that it's no wonder the bailiffs are they way they are, most of the councils they mainly work for are frighteningly incompetent and just after money. No one seems interested in the people who are actually paying that money and keeping the councils going.......

It's high time that people started kicking up a fuss and letting the rest of the world know exactly what these systems are like. Most people think that bailiffs are called in after years of non payment for thousands and that the person deserves all they get. Most people know that bailiffs are rough and scary and intimidating but genuinely believe that councils only employ them to chase the 'won't pay' not the 'can't pay'. My mum thought this - after being intimidated repeatedly by a bailiff she told me it was my fault as I should have dealt with the council earlier if I couldn't pay and they'd have helped (when I stopped laughing) I showed her the paperwork that pointed to me missing one instalment on that years council tax, and the following demands and she was shocked.

 

But how can it be done? How can the system be changed? I would honestly love to know and help because this is so wrong, all the stories on here can't be wrong, all the stories on other sites can't be wrong - there is a problem!

 

Interesting point you make about the perception people have of those pursued by bailiffs for outstanding council tax. Particularly irresponsible are councils that think nothing of labelling residents as criminals for transgressions as trivial as a late payment or two. I'm sure the stigma that goes with the association of bailiffs is something the authorities play on to gain support from the public thus creating a divide.

 

It seems standard practice for authorities to unimaginatively hit residents in their pockets to bring them to heel. The 'Penalty Culture', and the financial dependency that this revenue stream is increasingly relied upon by the government should – as you suggested – not just be accepted, it should be challenged and those responsible for the abuse exposed.

 

I’m sure there are thousands unwilling to highlight their cases, while preferring to keep their affairs low profile for fear of reprisals or the stigma associated with having to deal with bailiffs. There will be many who are afraid of embarrassing their family and friends and feel a social responsibility not to speak out against the malpractice of bailiffs.

 

Of course, the stigma attached here is largely undeserved because in many cases the so called debtor is not refusing or unable to pay, they have just been victims of reckless council’s automated, date triggered recovery systems which mechanically activate court and subsequently bailiff action without even a second thought.

 

Incidentally Isn't there something that can be done about this?

 

Opinion !¡¡! and ¡!!¡

Edited December 7, 2011 by outlawla

[brassnecked]

@ "Incidentally Isn't there something that can be done about this?

 

Opinion !¡¡!"

 

Well possibly the council will change their mind and appeal, "'The council has been advised that there could be grounds for a positive appeal on this basis but has decided not to take this step because of the potential cost to the public purse and the further distress and uncertainty this may cause"

after they have had countless committee meetings, which will conclude they wuz robbed, and the pensioner's illness and dementia should not have provided an excuse to dodge paying them their council tax, and on the facts as presented in the article would lose in the Court of appeal, and give weight to the case as precedent which can be used when tackling an incompetent council who blatantly ignore ANY vulnerability. Appeal or not this case is a useful tool to kick a recalcitrant council, and it's moronic fee hungry bailiffs.

Edited December 7, 2011 by brassnecked

[wonkeydonkey]

*For the purpose of estimating the quantity of material needed for the inmate uniforms, I would guess that at least 5 officers could be implicated for the penalty charge added to struggling council taxpayers bills. Add the leader and CEO of the council and we have 7. Adopting a similar principle to the bakers dozen, lets say 8.

 

We know all councils are almost carbon copies of each other, so for the 475 local authorities in England and Wales, I'd say material – and a corresponding number of buttons and arrows – for 3,800 units should be ample.*

 

Not a problem ...ebay seems to have it all...its working out the numbers of sequins to highlight the arrows thats giving me a headache:???:

WD