XXXXXXXXXX – Rossendales

[outlawla]

Thanks for the encouragement, cheerleaders etc.

 

I expect everybody experiences the same obstructive attitude from their respective councils. You'll find, much the same as McDonald's franchises, that all councils will be carbon copies of one another.

 

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

 

Still obstructive and arrogant, but at least this is available for all to see.

 

I think the three years in total I've been pursuing this arrogant brick wall over these issues would make my claim for costs incalculable, however, I will put some figures forward for consideration by the court.

 

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

 

By keeping countless thousands of cases of bailiff abuse and court costs exploitation from being uncovered, these council officers are enjoying their six figure salaries and obscene pensions, funded by those they are screwing.

 

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

Edited January 20, 2012 by outlawla

[brassnecked]

At least exposing the muppets to public scrutiny has let the cat out of their cosy bag, and people will be encouraged to challenge the scumbags, for that is what they are.

[outlawla]

Grimsby Magistrates' court reply, to letter, Post #57

 

Magistrates' Court

Victoria Street

Grimsby

 

Our ref: GT/1x/01/1x

 

19 January 2012

 

 

Dear Mr Outlawla

 

Further to your letter dated 4 January 2012 I regret to say that I do not feel I can be of any more assistance at this stage.

 

In respect of the process in general no doubt the Parliamentary Ombudsman will consider your complaint in due course.

 

In respect of the individual liability order proceedings on 2 June 2011 I understand that the Local Authority is applying to this court to quash the order made against you. That matter is listed for hearing on 27 January 2012 at 9.30 am. I am sure you will wish to attend court on that occasion.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Xxxxx Xxxxx,

Legal Team Manager

[brassnecked]

Grimsby Magistrates' court reply, to letter, Post #57

 

Magistrates' Court

Victoria Street

Grimsby

 

Our ref: GT/1x/01/1x

 

19 January 2012

 

 

Dear Mr Outlawla

 

Further to your letter dated 4 January 2012 I regret to say that I do not feel I can be of any more assistance at this stage.

 

In respect of the process in general no doubt the Parliamentary Ombudsman will consider your complaint in due course.

 

In respect of the individual liability order proceedings on 2 June 2011 I understand that the Local Authority is applying to this court to quash the order made against you. That matter is listed for hearing on 27 January 2012 at 9.30 am. I am sure you will wish to attend court on that occasion.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Xxxxx Xxxxx,

Legal Team Manager

 

You will be attending this won't you?

[outlawla]

You will be attending this won't you?

 

I will be attending brassnecked. Though, that this procedure requires a court hearing, is complete news to me.

[brassnecked]

I will be attending brassnecked. Though, that this procedure requires a court hearing, is complete news to me.

 

Well no doubt you will watch what they do with interest, I know I would, having seen the hell and muppetry you have suffered at their hands.

[outlawla]

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

The only positive is the liability order was quashed.

 

27 January 2012 – Court hearing for quashing liability order

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

Notes on the summons costs and the summons procedure

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

The summons stated:

“

If the total amount outstanding as stated above

including summons costs

is paid to North East Lincolnshire Council before the date of the hearing, all further proceedings will be stopped. However, if a Liability Order is granted the Council will apply for further costs of £25.00 being reasonable costs incurred

.”

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

 

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

 

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

 

Chief Justice Lord Widgery stated in the case between "Regina v. Brentford Justices, Ex parte Catlin" that:

“

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

.”

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

 

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

“

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

”

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

The council requesting payment details

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

A visit from a Rossendales’ bailiff

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

“

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

..”

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

 

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

 

 

Another payment made

 

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

 

 

Letters from Rossendales

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

Another payment made

 

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

 

 

Request for bank statements

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

Undated letter from council

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

Reference numbers mistakenly entered into bank payment instructions

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

The council has some news

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

“

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

”

 

“

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

.”

 

“

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

”

 

“

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

 

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

.”

Edited January 27, 2012 by outlawla

[brassnecked]

Gotcha! at least they quoshed the LO, but I'll bet it stuck in his craw. A victory of sorts, but the judge's attitude all to familiar. they all want the lying and cheating to go on and be buried at all cost.

[outlawla]

Complaint to Parliamentary Ombudsman – Outcome

 

25 January 2012

 

Dear Mr Outlawla

 

Your complaint to the Ombudsman

 

Further to our recent communications regarding your complaint I have written to your MP, Mr Xxxx Xxxx, to inform him of our decision on your complaint. I enclose a copy of that letter for your information.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Xxxx Xxxx

Assessor

 

Enc.: 1

 

Dear Mr Xxxxxx

 

Mr Outlawla, xx Xxxx Xxxxx, Grimsby DN32 XXX on behalf of ,

 

1. On 12 January 2012, the Parliamentary Ombudsman received your referral of Mr Outlawla's complaint against the North East Lincolnshire Council (the local council), the Information Commissioners' Office and HM Courts and Tribunals Service. We have now had the opportunity to consider Mr Outlawla's complaint, and I am able to give you our decision. For ease of understanding, I have split the complaint in three parts as follows.

 

The Local Council

 

2. As I understand it, Mr Outlawla mistakenly paid his council tax bills with an incorrect reference number, which led to his payments being allocated to another person's account. He said that it took the council many months to understand this and they delayed their investigations. This led to a council tax debt accruing and the council instructing bailiffs to collect the alleged debt. He said that the bailiffs acted fraudulently and tried to charge him fees despite not even turning up.

 

3. Mr Outlawla complained about the way the council and their bailiffs acted to try to collect his alleged council tax debt. He also complained about the way the council handled his complaint. Mr Outlawla wanted legal action taken against the council and their bailiffs for the distress he experienced.

 

4. Mr Outlawla completed the council's complaints procedure and eventually approached the Local Government Ombudsman (LGO). In July 2010, LGO declined to investigate the complaint about the bailiffs as it was out of their jurisdiction based on being an appealable decision which carried a right of appeal to the Magistrate's Court. Mr Outlawla had appealed but it was out of time and asked LGO to reconsider it. LGO explained that regardless of him being out of time to appeal, the matter was still outside their jurisdiction as it related to whether the bailiffs had acted irregularly or illegally. LGO said that allegations of fraud should be taken up with the police.

 

5. LGO did investigate other matters, such as how the local council had dealt with the matter and subsequent complaint. They decided to discontinue the investigation based on having found either no maladministration or no remaining injustice to Mr Outlawla. He then asked us to review the complaint about the council and its bailiffs.

 

6. Our decision: Mr Outlawla's complaint about the local council and its contracted out bailiffs are out of our remit. The Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967, from which the Ombudsman takes her powers, states that she can only investigate matters that relate to a government department; or to a corporation or body whose functions are exercised on behalf of the Crown; and only those government bodies or corporations that are listed under Schedule 2 of the Act. Local councils and private companies are not listed under Schedule 2 of the Act and therefore, they are not within the Ombudsman's remit. The correct avenue to consider such complaints is the LGO.

 

The Information Commissioner's Office (ICO)

 

7. Mr Outlawla complained to ICO that HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) disclosed third party information to him in a Data Protection request. He said that HMCTS added three third party's council tax references to his papers, which caused him confusion when paying his own council tax and led to his payments going to an incorrect account.

 

8. ICO responded to Mr Outlawla's complaint about HMCTS's data handling on 21 April 2011 and reviewed it in May 2011. ICO concluded that HMCTS's data handling could be improved and wrote to them to recommend that staff be advised to comply. ICO decided that this action was sufficient and proportionate, and in keeping with their regulatory role, and closed the case. Mr Outlawla complained to us that he is dissatisfied with the actions ICO undertook and believes that they should take further regulatory action.

 

9. Mr Outlawla also complained that 'Rossendale' (a private bailiff company contracted out by the local council) left confidential correspondence in his building wedged on the external door rather than posting it through his door.

 

10. ICO considered Mr Outlawla's complaint about the Bailiffs' handling of his personal data and reviewed it again in September 2011. ICO decided that it was 'likely' that Rossendale had complied with the Data Protection Act as there was no conclusive evidence to prove that the letters had not been handled properly, other than one party's word against the other. ICO said that, as.they could not rely on the evidence available, they would not take any regulatory action. Mr Outlawla told us that he believes that ICO should use its regulatory powers to take enforcement action.

 

11. Our decision: the ICO is within our remit and therefore and we have considered their handling of Mr Outlawla's complaints. In relation to HMCTS, ICO explained that, as it was not Mr Outlawla's information that was improperly released, they had no duty to make an assessment under their regulatory role. ICO decided, however, to use their general role to promote compliance and recommended that HMCTS improve their data handling by issuing warnings to their staff to be aware of how to handle data requests. Although I understand that Mr Outlawla is dissatisfied with ICO's actions here, we cannot see that their actions were not helpful or proportionate, or in keeping with their role.

 

12. In relation to the complaint about the bailiffs, ICO decided not to take any action as they could not find concrete evidence that it was likely Rossendale had failed to handle Mr Outlawla's personal information. In the absence of evidence, we cannot see that ICO's decision here was flawed. In our view, ICO took Mr Outlawla's concerns seriously, reviewed both his complaints and their decisions are not unreasonable. That being the case, we cannot see that there is any reason for us to investigate Mr Outlawla's complaint about ICO.

 

HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS)

 

13. Mr Outlawla complained about the court's procedure of bulk handling council tax cases, where over 3,000 cases where heard at the same hearing as his. He said that the judge issued summons without looking at the clear evidence provided and he believes that this was 'dereliction of duty' in the judicial exercise. Mr Outlawla would like HMCTS to change its court procedures on 'bulk hearings'.

 

14. HMCTS said in July 2011 that 'the applications for Council tax summons were laid at this court, and by the powers delegated by the Justices Clerk the applications were duly considered and a judicial decision was made to issue the summonses.' They said they could not comment on judicial decisions. Mr Outlawla was still dissatisfied with the procedure itself and on 23 December 2011 HMCTS said that the procedure had recently been reviewed at national level and as a result it had been determined that the 'process in respect of issuing the summons is lawful and transparent'.

 

15. Mr Outlawla also complained about the judge's decisions on his 'complaint against a certified bailiff' under the Distress for Rent Rules 1988 Rule 8. He said that he would like the courts to fully investigate his complaint against the bailiffs.

 

16. Mr Outlawla's complaint about the conduct of the bailiffs was passed to the county court that issued the bailiff's license and was considered by Judge Appleton, who decided based on the evidence available, that the bailiff's fitness was not in question and that no further action should be taken. HMCTS issued the decision and explained in August 2010 that this had been a judicial decision and the judge's decision could only be disputed through an appeal. Mr Outlawla then asked us to consider both complaints.

 

17. Our decision: Both of Mr Outlawla's complaints about HMCTS are out of our remit. We can only deal with administrative actions of the courts and not the exercise of judicial or legislative matters.

 

18. As I understand it, the court processes are based on the Civil Procedure Rules, which is in itself based in legislation and statutory instruments. The Ombudsman can only investigate administrative functions of government bodies listed in Schedule 2 of Partiamentary Commissioner Act 1967. The exercise of legislative functions are outside the Ombudsman's remit and she does not have the power to change or dispute legislation.

 

19. In relation to judge's decisions, the Ombudsman also cannot investigate any action taken in the course of administrative functions exercised at the direction, or on the authority (whether express or implied), of a judge of any court established under the law of England and Wales or Northern Ireland. This is specified in Schedule 3 of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967. For these reasons, we cannot consider Mr Outlawla's complaint about HMCTS.

 

Conclusion

 

20. We have undertaken an impartial review of Mr Outlawla's complaints and concluded that we cannot investigate his complaint about the local council or HMCTS as these are out of our remit. Having considered his complaint about ICO, we cannot see that their actions were unreasonable and therefore we have no grounds to investigate Mr Outlawla's complaint.

 

21. I acknowledge that Mr Outlawla will be disappointed with our decision; however, I hope that he will take some reassurance from the fact that we have considered his concerns in detail. I have sent a copy of this letter to Mr Outlawla for his information.

 

Yours sincerely

Xxxxx Xxxx

 

Assessor

[outlawla]

North East Lincolnshire Council

Civic Offices Knoll Street

North East Lincolnshire

DN35 8LN

 

13/02/12

 

Dear head of Income & Payments Service

 

Re: Professional negligence

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Yours sincerely

 

Outlawla

Edited February 14, 2012 by outlawla

[Gbarbm]

Outlawla.... That is brilliant! Their hearts must sink when they receive a letter from you.

[brassnecked]

The word gotcha springs to mind, but these muppets are so sure of themselves as being "Above The Law" that nothing will happen, but on the other hand, you should be congratulated for your ceaseless efforts to nail them.

[ploddertom]

Ahh but ................. this is why NELC Council Tax is so high as they must now have an Outlawla Dept to service.

 

 

PT

[brassnecked]

Ahh but ................. this is why NELC Council Tax is so high as they must now have an Outlawla Dept to service.

 

 

PT

 

For the muppets at NELC (NOT) they are digging themselves deeper into the doo doo:lol:

[outlawla]

Ahh but ................. this is why NELC Council Tax is so high as they must now have an Outlawla Dept to service.

 

 

PT

 

Ha Haa!

 

It's a small price to keep these slackers on their toes. What are the chances of "out stubborn-ing" a council?

[Gbarbm]

You know you're right, they know that you know you're right, you know that they know you're right....now who's going to blink first?

[outlawla]

North East Lincolnshire Council

Finance Department

Civic Offices Knoll Street

Cleethorpes

 

 

08/03/12

 

 

 

Dear Head of Income and Payments Service

 

 

Re: Formal Complaint submitted 13 December 2011

 

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

 

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

"....

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

"

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

 

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

 

 

 

Yours sincerely

 

Outlawla

Edited March 10, 2012 by outlawla

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Very Brave, I wish you luck:madgrin:

[brassnecked]

Yes good luck with that one outlawla! The only cure for NELC is a complete spring clean of muppets, but unfortunately for various reasons, they are virtually unsackable. however the ELECTED COUNCILLORS can be removed, some of them in May, so a little bit of pressure......

[outlawla]

North East Lincolnshire Council

Finance Department

Civic Offices Knoll Street

Cleethorpes

 

 

08/03/12

 

 

 

Dear Head of Income and Payments Service

 

 

Re: Formal Complaint submitted 13 December 2011

 

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

 

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

"....

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

"

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

 

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

 

 

 

Yours sincerely

 

Outlawla

 

 

North East Lincolnshire council said:

 

13/03/12

 

Mr Outlawla,

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Regards,

 

Income & Collection Manager

Income & Payments Service

 

 

Might as well add this example of NELC's intransigence to the list:

 

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

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

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

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

• “Your original complaint has been closed and North East Lincolnshire Council does not intend to make representations at the County Court under Regulation 8 of the distress for Rent Rules 1988. If you wish to pursue this course of action further then you are within your rights to contact the County Court yourself, where you can put your complaint forward.”
  
  

Edited March 14, 2012 by outlawla

[outlawla]

North East Lincolnshire Council

Finance Department

Civic Offices Knoll Street

Cleethorpes

 

14/03/12

 

 

Dear Income & Collection Manager

 

 

Re: Refusal to make alternative arrangement for council tax payments

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

There are obstacles preventing residents making contact with staff members in debt recovery, the biggest perhaps being that aggrieved residents, wishing to raise concerns, would have their telephone enquiries diverted, and "dealt with by a corporate call centre, outside of the Income & Payments Services"

 

This inaccessibility has consequences for complaints about bailiffs in that it prevents malpractice being highlighted, and consequently, being allowed to continue without being brought to the attention of the relevant managers, who should – if they had authorisation and inclination to do so – investigate the complaint.

 

As far as an independent view of these concerns, residents are pretty much stitched-up when taking issues to the Citizen's advice bureau. These bureaux generally receive council funding, and being a principal funder, this gives councils the right to draft service level agreements and consequently influence how the organisation is run. The indoctrination that its contractor bailiff is the council's reputable appointed bailiff firm, who act according to guidelines, is most likely the reason the CAB take no interest.

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

Yours sincerely

 

Outlawla

Edited March 14, 2012 by outlawla

[brassnecked]

Ouch that's gotta hurt, well it would if the muppets in NELC and other authorities guilty of malpractice were brought up short in front of the beak!

[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.

 

Complaint Post #31

 

Local Government

OMBUDSMAN

 

14 March 2012

 

Dear Mr Outlawla

 

Complaint against North East Lincolnshire Council

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

• you disagree with my reasoning; or
  

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

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

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

Investigator

 

 

Provisional view

 

Complaint ref:

BinJ: North East Lincolnshire Council

Date: 14 March 2012

 

1. The complaint

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

2. The law and the Ombudsman

 

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

 

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

 

3. The law relevant to this complaint

 

Council Tax

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Council Tax Recovery

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

4. What happened

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

5. Provisional view

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

6. Conclusion

 

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

 

Investigator

 

On behalf of the Local Government Ombudsman

[brassnecked]

Whitewash, is the Ombudsman applying liberal amounts of blanco to the coal?

[outlawla]

Local Government Ombudsman

Beverly House

17 Shipton Road

York

 

Complaint ref: xx0 xx0

 

17/03/12

 

 

Dear Mr lgo investigator

 

 

Re: Complaint against North East Lincolnshire Council

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

4. What happened

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

5. Provisional view

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

"

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

"

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

 

These were:

 

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

 

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

 

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

"

National Standards for Enforcement Agents

 

Information and confidentiality

 

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

."

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

 

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

 

 

 

Yours sincerely

 

Outlawla

Edited March 18, 2012 by outlawla