XXXXXXXXXX – Rossendales

[brassnecked]

*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

 

Even bigger headache, what size should the sequins be, and should they be Hi Viz?

[ploddertom]

If of any use I have a friend in the building trade who tells me he has a spare plot of land!

[brassnecked]

If of any use I have a friend in the building trade who tells me he has a spare plot of land!

 

Well private prisons are allegedly profitable

[outlawla]

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

 

 

Chief Executive

Municipal Offices

Town Hall Square

Grimsby

 

06/12/11 (Edited)

 

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

 

Y

ear 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.

 

EDITED ADDITION

 

The agreement between North and North East Lincolnshire Councils to share council tax administration also brings into question why measures were necessary to raise more income to cover the cost of recovery. The move is expected to see 21.4 full time equivalent posts cut within the two councils with a potential saving of £1.27-million over the following 4 years. Considering this, the obvious action taken by the council would be to reduce penalties accordingly.

 

The 7 November 2011 cabinet document outlining the shared service proposal for revenues and benefits service has, in a nut-shell, justified – if it were to conform with regulations in part 6 (Application for liability order) of the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations – the necessity to correspondingly reduce the costs incurred by those residents receiving penalties.

 

The following summarises why the council are falling outside the law with its policy that turns council tax and business rates collection into a money making EDIT:

 

• The law states that no profit can made by the council when collecting Council Tax arrears and only allowed to 'cover their costs' when applying penalties for late payment.

 

• The Council is listing 'debt recovery' as 'income'.

 

• It has categorically stated that sharing Revenues and Benefits services with North Lincs Council will reduce costs with potential saving £1.27-million over the following 4 years.

 

• The Council has raised penalty fees and rearranged how they are applied in order to collect a forecasted additional £752,000 for the same period.

 

• Costs are forecasted to be lower so penalty charges must follow accordingly to avoid a breach of the Council Tax Regulations.

 

• The council has raised the penalties to plug a hole in their finances.

 

• It has combined both the Summons and Liability Order penalties into one charge

 

• Combining the Summons and Liability Order is not authorised by the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992.

 

 

END EDITED ADDITION

 

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

 

 

The kindly Local Authority went out of its way to give this comprehensive response:

 

 

Dear Outlawla

 

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

 

Best Regards

 

Principal Performance and Improvement Officer - North East Lincolnshire Council

 

Municipal Office | Grimsby DN31 1HU

[brassnecked]

These muppets will never admit they have been wrong, I wouldn't be surprised if tossendales come back for their wholly illegal fees, as the council will still want you to pay their costs incurred from the wrongful seeking of the liability order and subsequent bailiff action

[outlawla]

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.

 

 

 

[outlawla]

OK, time for another Formal Complaint to the Council

 

North East Lincolnshire Council

Finance Department

Civic Offices Knoll Street

Cleethorpes

North East Lincolnshire

DN35 8LN

 

13/12/11

 

 

Dear Sir/Madam

 

 

Re: Council tax Ref: 550xxxxxxx – Formal Complaint

 

In their obsession to extort at least half a million pounds each year from council tax paying residents, North East Lincolnshire council along with its partner, “Grimsby Magistrates’ court” have negligently dragged me into being one of their greedy statistics.

 

I had paid in accordance with Part 5 and Schedule 1 of the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 (As amended). However, despite never defaulting on my council tax payments, I received in the first instance threatening letters. In a letter dated 21 April 2011, I asked if the council would desist from harassing me with its computer generated threats and advised I had paid in excess of the required instalment amount and well before it was due. There was no response to this and the council proceeded to take court action.

 

I stated at the court hearing that my council tax payments were up to date and I had not defaulted. However, the Magistrate preferred to take the word of the council’s court enforcement manager, a less than honest character which in my opinion is not untypical for the council.

 

This was only one of typically several bogus court hearings conducted annually which sees on average half a million pounds taken from NEL residents. 3,359 was the number representing residents who were summoned to this particular court hearing alone. There is something profoundly wrong with a council’s recovery department that invokes court action for this many residents.

 

The council has admitted that, in the last 5 years, it has obtained hundreds of liability orders through the Magistrates’ court for council tax 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 clearly indicates 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.

 

I refer to Lord Widgery C.J's case law "Regina v. Brentford Justices, Ex parte Catlin" which is in my opinion cause to believe that issuing these Summonses 'en mass' would amount to very serious maladministration as can be seen from the following.

 

Lord Widgery's comments:

 

"....It must however be remembered that before a summons or warrant is issued the information must be laid before a magistrate and he must go through the judicial exercise of deciding whether a summons or warrant ought to be issued or not. If a magistrate authorises the issue of a summons without having applied his mind to the information then he is guilty of dereliction of duty and if in any particular justices' clerk's office a practice goes on of summonses being issued without information being laid before the magistrate at all, then a very serious instance of maladministration arises which should have the attention of the Authorities without delay...."

 

"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...."

 

Given that the number of these summonses run into several hundred or even thousand at any given hearing, and that the council send out their own, it’s reasonable to suspect very serious instances of maladministration as those mentioned above in Lord Widgery’s comments.

 

The Income and Collections department must have discovered some monumental error on its part which it will now be trying to cover-up as there has been no mention or demand for the £70 Summons penalty or the £24.50 bailiff fee I incurred because of its negligence.

 

Up until the time the Income and Collections department finally acknowledged they had located my payments, I had already paid to the council £696.91 of my current year’s council tax liability in accordance with the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992.

 

How could have all this money paid to the council gone unnoticed?

 

Maybe the absence of any care and attention is the essential non-ingredient to ensure revenue from taking residents to court remains on target for the collections team. Maybe it's the department’s policy not to be too diligent.

 

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

 

I’m also told that “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.”

 

I’ve also been advised that the debt on my account was in the order of £940.91 so was correctly progressed for recovery. This was clearly untrue.

 

The following makes up part of what is the council’s response to a Freedom of Information request which if presented correctly then the explanation for why debts of less than £50 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

 

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

 

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.

 

Even if the council have misworded their response and thedata 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 these 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?

 

So, I’ve outlined my grievances regarding this latest fiasco caused by the authority’s haphazard enforcement of council tax and hope North East Lincolnshire council will address them and come up with some meaningful answers.

 

More specifically though, I need to know where I stand regarding the £70 Summons penalty and the £24.50 bailiff fee I have incurred. Up to now the council is acting as though nothing has occurred, though in fact what it has done amounts to maladministration and abuse.

 

Of course I expect a sum offered from which to negotiate a final compensatory settlement for suffering council’s actions and it instructing criminal enforcement firm Rossendales to collect a nonexistent debt. Additionally I would like to see awarded, compensation to other residents who have also been affected by similar maladministration.

 

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

 

For this reason andbecause 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 it to be collected.

 

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

Outlawla.

[wonkeydonkey]

Outlawla

 

Are you getting any support externally eg: your MP..to bring your excellent research and conclusions to the attention of those that walk the corridor's of power?

 

WD

[brassnecked]

They will summons you again next year to get a LO to p1$$ you off when they conveniently lose your payments no doubt. Someone in authority MUST soon do something about the extreme muppetry perpetrated in the name of the law.

[outlawla]

Outlawla

 

Are you getting any support externally eg: your MP..to bring your excellent research and conclusions to the attention of those that walk the corridor's of power?

 

WD

 

 

They will summons you again next year to get a LO to p1$$ you off when they conveniently lose your payments no doubt. Someone in authority MUST soon do something about the extreme muppetry perpetrated in the name of the law.

 

I think "those that walk the corridor's of power" have to tread very carefully regarding this issue. The MoJ looks at its balance sheet as do the councils and choose only to see the £millions in revenue, not the fraudulent way it's obtained.

 

No council will admit that this is a racket, it would have a nock-on effect and every local authority would come under scrutiny. I suppose that's why Chief Executive's of councils are paid around 150 to £200,000 each year – to make sure such issues remain covered up.

 

Local authorities have further reason to be smug about this; they know any questions put in parliament will be passed from one minister to another but ultimately nobody will tackle the problem and refer all responsibility to the council.

 

An example,

 

Excerpt from a reply to questions put to the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Justice, incidentally passed on to, and answered by the Under Secretary of State (Communities & Local Government)

 

......I note your concern at North East Lincolnshire Council's decision to raise the summons penalty charge for council tax. As you know, the administration for council tax is for local, not central, government so I cannot comment on Lincolnshire's decision. However, the following background information will help clarify the rules regarding this issue.

 

As part of the enforcement powers, set out in the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992, local authorities have powers to include "reasonable costs incurred" in connection with their application for a liability order. If a debtor believes, the costs are not reasonable they should, in the first instance, contact the local authority.....

Edited December 14, 2011 by outlawla

[outlawla]

COMPLAINT TO GRIMSBY MAGISTRATES' COURT FOR NEGLIGENTLY GRANTING LIABILITY ORDER AND ISSUING SUMMONS ON COUNCILS' SAY SO

 

Court Complaint (EX343A Complaint form)For offi

 

16/12/2011

cial use

 

• The court/probate registry cannot consider complaints about a decision a judge or magistrate has made, or the conduct of a judge or magistrate.

 

• Please use black ink as the form may be copied. Please return the completed form to the court/probate registry.

 

The court/probate registry

 

The name and address of the court/probate registry about which you are complaining.

 

Grimsby Magistrates’ Court

Victoria Street

Grimsby

DN31 1NH

 

Your complaint

 

Please:

• explain clearly the nature of your complaint;

• describe any facts and events relating to it;

• say why you think a member of staff has made a mistake; and

• what loss if any, you have incurred as a result

 

This complaint is in connection with one made earlier this year. Please find enclosed contents of that complaint. Also find enclosed a letter from NELC, admitting that I had in fact paid the council tax – for which it applied and was granted a liability order for non-payment. This was despite me sending a letter to the council explaining funds had been accepted in its account and stating the same to Magistrates at the hearing.

 

Lord Widgery stated in "Regina v. Brentford Justices, Ex parte Catlin" that:

 

"....It must however be remembered that before a summons or warrant is issued the information must be laid before a magistrate and he must go through the judicial exercise of deciding whether a summons or warrant ought to be issued or not. If a magistrate authorises the issue of a summons without having applied his mind to the information then he is guilty of dereliction of duty....".

 

I believe my complaint needs revisiting as my case has highlighted that according to Lord Widgery's statement, a magistrate has indeed authorised the issue of a summons without having applied his mind to the information.

 

Do you have any suggestions to improve the service you have received?

 

Revise the arrangement for taking residents to court 'en mass' over late payment / non-payment of council tax. The process is obviously to raise revenue for both council and HMCTS. The court can't cope with the thousands of cases it needs to process, this is made obvious with the council needing to carry out court procedures, both in sending out summonses and hiring court premises so they can intervene with attendees.

[brassnecked]

Well compiled complaint Outlawa, but as you point out they will wriggle out of it by citing the duty imposed on the LA to collect the Council Tax by any means possible.

 

Perhaps fault with the system could be grounded with reference to the European Convention of Human Rights specifically Article 6, as the system where councils act as they did against you and the many others could well be in breach of Article 6

"

ARTICLE 6

In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgement shall be pronounced publicly by the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interest of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice.

1. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.
   
2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights:
   
   • (a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him;
     
   • (b) to have adequate time and the facilities for the preparation of his defence;
     
   • © to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require;
     
   • (d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him;
     
   • (e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.
     

 

[outlawla]

...Perhaps fault with the system could be grounded with reference to the European Convention of Human Rights specifically Article 6, as the system where councils act as they did against you and the many others could well be in breach of Article 6...

 

I think you could have the answer there. Perhaps the focus should be put on the legality of the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 rather than whether or not the authorities are complying with them.

 

In my mind I see the Council Tax Regulations as freak legislation, devised solely to enable processing "so called" through the court in the most efficient way and consequently creating an additional revenue stream.

 

The specific regulations are dealt with in Parts V (Billing) and VI (Enforcement) where the traps are set, enabling the authority to quote and wave these in front of the victims and the Magistrates' when caught-out 'en mass'.

 

This process does not constitute a proper court hearing and is merely a formality. This can be determined by the fact that thousands subject to "so called" prosecution are not even required to attend the hearing and those who do attend are vigorously pursuaded that there's no need to be heard in the courtroom. But those persistent enough to get there case heard, have in fact been tried before even entering the courtroom, because regulations dictate what the defendant can and cannot use in his defence and has virtually no voice.

[brassnecked]

I think you could have the answer there. Perhaps the focus should be put on the legality of the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 rather than whether or not the authorities are complying with them.

 

In my mind I see the Council Tax Regulations as freak legislation, devised solely to enable processing "so called" through the court in the most efficient way and consequently creating an additional revenue stream.

 

The specific regulations are dealt with in Parts V (Billing) and VI (Enforcement) where the traps are set, enabling the authority to quote and wave these in front of the victims and the Magistrates' when caught-out 'en mass'.

 

This process does not constitute a proper court hearing and is merely a formality. This can be determined by the fact that thousands subject to "so called" prosecution are not even required to attend the hearing and those who do attend are vigorously pursuaded that there's no need to be heard in the courtroom. But those persistent enough to get there case heard, have in fact been tried before even entering the courtroom, because regulations dictate what the defendant can and cannot use in his defence and has virtually no voice.

 

As it is devoid of due process, is automated, and goes on the nod I feel the whole system IS in fundamental breach of Article 6, but they will use any excuse to deny the breach, as in expediency and for revenue collection.

I wonder if the signatures of the officers issuing the summonses are photocopies? If they are as these are magistrates court proceedings allegedly, EACH SUMMONS SHOULD BE SIGNED BY HAND by the issuing official. Brunstrom got caught out in north Wales with his speed camera tickets using printed signatures on paperwork

 

Quoted from the ABD site"2004 Nov — North Wales — Printed Signature

6,500 Drivers. £390,000.

North Wales police had to refund thousands of fines after a judge discovered they'd been printing a signature on forms rather than getting an officer to check and sign each one as the law requires. Judge Derek Halbert slammed North Wales Police for automating speeding prosecutions. Demonstrating once again their contempt for due legal process when dealing with drivers, the police had submitted numerous items of evidence supposedly witnessed and signed by a police officer, yet it was revealed in court that the signature had in fact been scanned and added by computer. The judge described the police procedure as "utterly inappropriate". Once their little game had been uncovered, the police promised to change the procedure. The question is why they introduced it in the first place."

 

http://www.abd.org.uk/talivan_incompetence.htm

 

and in the Daily Post here:

 

http://icnorthwales.icnetwork.co.uk/news/regionalnews/page.cfm?objectid=14859820&method=full&siteid=50142

 

Wonder if the Council Tax HMCS stitch up is a breach of due process in a similar way? If so the whole system could be in breach of UK law anyway.

[outlawla]

...Wonder if the Council Tax HMCS stitch up is a breach of due process in a similar way? If so the whole system could be in breach of UK law anyway.

 

I read something about this, can't remember where but will post details if/when I find it.

 

Anyway it originated from that Lord Widgery case "Regina v. Brentford Justices, Ex parte Catlin". The transcript for this case is difficult to find, but I remember a council citing it when fending off a FOI request asking it to justify the signatures being rubber stamped onto summonses. Unfortunately though the council kind of scored an own goal because Lord Widgery also stated that in post #32 which, pretty much incriminates all Magistrates' courts dealing with council tax simmonses.

 

EDIT:

 

The link

 

The case between R v Brentford Justices, ex parte Catlin allowed the Magistrates’ Court to use a rubber-stamp facsimile. This judgment also allowed another person if expressly authorized to do so or, if he is subject to the control and direction of the justice, if he is acting in accordance with the established practice in the Justice’s office to use the rubber-stamp.

 

http://banfieldenterprise.co.uk/linked/case%20law.doc

Edited December 17, 2011 by outlawla

[brassnecked]

Thanks for the links outlawa, most interesting

[outlawla]

COMPLAINT TO GRIMSBY MAGISTRATES' COURT FOR NEGLIGENTLY GRANTING LIABILITY ORDER AND ISSUING SUMMONS ON COUNCILS' SAY SO

 

Court Complaint (EX343A Complaint form)For offi

 

16/12/2011

cial use

 

• The court/probate registry cannot consider complaints about a decision a judge or magistrate has made, or the conduct of a judge or magistrate.

 

• Please use black ink as the form may be copied. Please return the completed form to the court/probate registry.

 

The court/probate registry

 

The name and address of the court/probate registry about which you are complaining.

 

Grimsby Magistrates’ Court

Victoria Street

Grimsby

DN31 1NH

 

Your complaint

 

Please:

• explain clearly the nature of your complaint;

• describe any facts and events relating to it;

• say why you think a member of staff has made a mistake; and

• what loss if any, you have incurred as a result

 

This complaint is in connection with one made earlier this year. Please find enclosed contents of that complaint. Also find enclosed a letter from NELC, admitting that I had in fact paid the council tax – for which it applied and was granted a liability order for non-payment. This was despite me sending a letter to the council explaining funds had been accepted in its account and stating the same to Magistrates at the hearing.

 

Lord Widgery stated in "Regina v. Brentford Justices, Ex parte Catlin" that:

 

"....It must however be remembered that before a summons or warrant is issued the information must be laid before a magistrate and he must go through the judicial exercise of deciding whether a summons or warrant ought to be issued or not. If a magistrate authorises the issue of a summons without having applied his mind to the information then he is guilty of dereliction of duty....".

 

I believe my complaint needs revisiting as my case has highlighted that according to Lord Widgery's statement, a magistrate has indeed authorised the issue of a summons without having applied his mind to the information.

 

 

Do you have any suggestions to improve the service you have received?

 

Revise the arrangement for taking residents to court 'en mass' over late payment / non-payment of council tax. The process is obviously to raise revenue for both council and HMCTS. The court can't cope with the thousands of cases it needs to process, this is made obvious with the council needing to carry out court procedures, both in sending out summonses and hiring court premises so they can intervene with attendees.

 

 

It seems the procedure is all correct and above board because they say so.

 

Grimsby Magistrates' Court

Victoria Street

Grimsby

DN31 1NH

 

Our ref: GT/23/1x/xx

 

23 December 2011

 

Dear Mr Outlawla

 

I write in response to your letter dated 16 December 2011.

 

In that letter you raise the matter of the procedure in liability order applications in council tax cases.

 

I can inform you that the procedure has recently been reviewed at national level.

 

As a result it has been determined that the following process in respect of issuing the summons is lawful and transparent:

 

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

 

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

 

3. A copy of the list is returned endorsed to the council and the court retains the other endorsed list. The council then print the summonses, pre-printed with the Justices' Clerk's signature, and post them out.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Legal Team Manager.

[brassnecked]

Well they would say that wouldn't they, but Brunstrom and Heddlu Gogledd Cymru came unstuck with computer scanned signatures on summonses. Can't see any difference in principle, even if the Grim Council can

[outlawla]

North East Lincolnshire Council

Finance Department

North East Lincolnshire

DN35 8LN

 

 

31/12/11

 

Dear Head of Income and Payments Service

 

Re: Quashing Liability Order and offer of compensation

 

The Local Government Finance Act 1992 provides for magistrates' courts to be given powers to quash liability orders if the court is satisfied that the liability order should not have been made.

 

A liability order was made against me at the council’s request on June 2, 2011.

 

I request you apply to the Magistrates’ court under

Part 12A , Schedule 4 of the Act to have all record of this order delated from the record.

 

In response to a letter from the council threatening instalment withdrawal and recovery action etc, I wrote back on the 21st of April 2011, explaining I had paid, and well before the due date. This didn’t stop the council sending me a Summons, obtaining a liability order from the magistrates’ court and subsequently instructing [EDIT]ed enforcement firm Rossendales.

 

Although I stated at the court hearing that all payments had been made to the council and on time, the magistrate still granted the liability order.

 

An undated letter I received on November 23, 2011 from court enforcement manager X. Xxxx stated that “By investigations undertaken within the council and banks I now have proof that these payments are yours.” I don’t think there’s any doubt that steps taken to enforce payment have been unlawful; so please arrange that this liability order be quashed.

 

I have not been contacted by the council over this matter since Mr. Xxxx informed me my payments had been located. I still have outstanding court costs and bailiff fees which neither the council nor Rossendales have mentioned. I haven’t brought this up because I wish to forward payment, rather, for the record.

 

I require a statement of what’s left owing and an offer of compensation for suffering this fiasco at the hands of the council.

 

 

 

Yours sincerely

 

Outlawla.

Edited December 31, 2011 by outlawla

[brassnecked]

They may well try to ignore and avoid you. Likely Rossers may have been told to keep away, in case you actually get someone to listen and act against both the council and Rossers. Did the word edited in the post happen to be what shepherds held onto whilst they watched their flocks by night?

[outlawla]

They may well try to ignore and avoid you. Likely Rossers may have been told to keep away, in case you actually get someone to listen and act against both the council and Rossers. Did the word edited in the post happen to be what shepherds held onto whilst they watched their flocks by night?

 

Ha-ha-ha......that's the one. I thought I'd better play safe.

[brassnecked]

Ha-ha-ha......that's the one. I thought I'd better play safe.

 

Well when the "Glory" shone around, the Grim Council, and rossers were not basking in it's glow were they.

[outlawla]

North East Lincolnshire Council

Finance Department

North East Lincolnshire

DN35 8LN

 

01/01/12

 

Dear Head of Income & Payments Service

 

Re: Distress for Rent Rules Form 5 complaint to the County Court

 

For your information I have enclosed a sample of the Distress for Rent Rules "Form 5". This complaint form can be submitted by local authorities to notify the county court of an upheld complaint against a Certificated Bailiff. This complaint can be considered by a circuit judge in the same manner as a complaint made straight to the court by an aggrieved person, i.e. the “Form 4” route outlined in Regulation 8(1) of the Distress for Rent Rules 1988.

 

I’m bringing this to the attention of the council in the hope it will demonstrate some commitment to cutting out the rot which is rampant among bailiff firms collecting for councils.

 

I believe this procedure was not undertaken by the council even though it upheld aspects of a formal complaint I submitted, about which I will give only brief details.

 

On the 2nd November 2009, after repeated denial of any wrong doing by the council, I finally got recognition that two of many concerns I’d raised through a formal complaint were upheld by the council’s court enforcement manager Xxxx Xxxx.

 

The complaint was only partially successful as many other issues about Rossendale’s attempts to defraud me while collecting an alleged council tax debt for the council were dismissed, due to the difficulty of proving “phantom visits”. Never the less the unlawful levy where the bailiff secretly seized an arbitrary vehicle in a car park, solely to gain an additional £135 fee and another £60 fee he invented were upheld aspects of my formal complaint. Although the council either insisted or influenced Rossendales to get rid of the bailiff concerned, I believe he became employed by another enforcement firm. The effectiveness of this was at best just moving the problem to another part of the country.

 

I’m therefore asking that you take the opportunity of submitting details of this incident to the court which issued his certificate, Burnley Combined Court Centre. It would also be good practice if this procedure was followed in all cases where complaints are found in favour of the aggrieved complainant.

 

If local authorities were to adopt the practice of submitting complaints to the county courts in these circumstances, admittedly it would only highlight a fraction of the abuse. I think you’d agree, the priority of councils – whether justified or otherwise – is to find any complaint unfounded in a bid to protect its reputation. Consequently, only a small percentage of malpractice would get the attention of the courts.

 

There would ideally be an independent regulatory body which could deal with grievances and act on them appropriately, as apposed to the current procedure where councils miraculously seem to make all evidence of these disappear. This would lend itself to a more transparent system – the officially recorded data would then indicate the true scale of corruption.

 

Hopefully then, we’d be subjected to fewer bare faced lies we hear reiterated by council spokesmen, priding themselves that their appointed enforcement firms are governed by the National Standards for Enforcement Agent’s Code of Practice with such complaints being as rare as rocking horse manure. Neither would the boss of Rossendales get away with such sickening Oscar winning performances as those seen on her television interview on ITV’s Exposure programme – portraying her incredulity that any of her bailiffs could be wayward.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Outlawla

Edited January 1, 2012 by outlawla

[sillygirl1]

If you put in a defence for the council tax summons they will get a nasty shock - did this earlier this year - they don't really listen to people, same as the water authority, just 'follow regulations because we have to'... much like the mortgage companies and repossessions.

 

In most cases entering a simple defence is enough to get them worried, think how much it would cost them if you had to appear in court, and you brought the press along to witness the proceedings!

 

None of these summonses are 'a pre arranged thing', stand up for your rights and put in a simple defence and all the councils will have to rethink their procedures.

[brassnecked]

Nicely put outlawa