Westminster...Capita...Eq uita. Pressure mounting for investigation into conflict of interest !!!

[tomtubby]

Well well what a surprise !!!!

 

 

.

 

 

For a full copy of the article...please see the link at the end of this post......

 

 

COUNCIL bosses are under pressure to investigate a possible conflict of interest after it emerged the company that hands out council tax benefit is also in charge of bailiffs that chase unpaid rates.

 

Capita Group have an £11.5million annual contract to manage various services on behalf of Westminster, including collecting council tax and providing advice to residents who apply for reduced rates.

 

When residents fall behind on council tax, private bailiffs are employed to pursue the debt.

 

But unbeknown to them, Equita Ltd, one of the bailiff companies used by Westminster, are owned by Capita Group.

 

It has led to claims of a “pincer movement” against residents as those who are unable to pay full council tax or think they qualify for an exemption have to contact Capita to put their case.

 

If people are unsuccessful, and fail to keep up payments, their debt will pursued by bailiffs who include Equita.

 

Capita say there is no conflict because both contracts were secured after a “rigorous and competitive tender process”.

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.westendextra.com/news/2013/aug/call-probe-%E2%80%98bailiffs-and-tax-collector%E2%80%99-link

[citizenB]

Capita say there is no conflict because both contracts were secured after a “rigorous and competitive tender process”.

 

Well they would say that, wouldn't they !!

[lookinforinfo]

Typical of Capita to misdirect the argument. The conflict is not the selection of which bailiff company they use.

One of the conflicts arise when they know when bailiffs are overcharging but refuse to admit it and back the bailiffs through thick and thin.

[ploddertom]

Westminster is just the thin end of the wedge seeing as this is common in a lot of local authority areas,

[outlawla]

Let's hope this pressure on local authority bailiff contractors continues its momentum. You never know, even the BBC might one day find the public interest too much to ignore.

[brassnecked]

All this will bite Crapita, and councils badly on the bum, unless they try to bury this gem quick smart.

 

It is an obvious conflict if the very company assessing and awarding the benefit and concessions are also owners of the bailiffs they send in for non payment. It also begs the question, how many people in dire circumstances who are entitled to Council Tax relief either full or in part have had their claim rejected, then Crapita send in the bailiffs to collect the manufactured debt?

[tomtubby]

This story is merely the "tip of the iceberg". You only have to put the words...Capita...Equita...and Birmingham into a Google search and you will see hundreds of complaints about the "conflict of interest" between such a set up. It is my understanding that with this particular contract (Westminster) which was secured after a “rigorous and competitive tender process” the "contract" was awarded for an astonishing 25 years !!!

 

Strange ???

[tomtubby]

Time for an FOI request to be made to Birmingham City Council and its close neighbour....Coventry.

 

I have been looking over a few enquiries that I have received over the past couple of weeks and it would "appear" that "Capita" who are the "back office" providers to Birmingham City Council are permitting their bailiff provider; Equita Ltd ( who are of course owned by Capita) to charge financially impoverished debtors an "attending to remove" fee of £220 !!!

 

Any yet, their close neighbour......Coventry City Council appear to only allow their bailiff providers to charge an "attending to remove" fee of £110.

 

So...why would Capita (who own Equita Ltd) allow their bailiff provider to charge an ATR fee of £220 when their close neighbour (Coventry) allow their bailiff companies to charge half the amount (ie £110). Very odd......

 

Could it be because Coventry issued a "competitive" bailiff tender" ? No....surely not.

[outlawla]

The law allows only for costs reasonably incurred. It's the same bailiff firm so the only difference between attending with a vehicle is location. It therefore must mean petrol and road tolls in Birmingham are twice that of Coventry.

[brassnecked]

The law allows only for costs reasonably incurred. It's the same bailiff firm so the only difference between attending with a vehicle is location. It therefore must mean petrol and road tolls in Birmingham are twice that of Coventry.

They must use the M6 Toll road then.....

[tomtubby]

They must use the M6 Toll road then.....

.

.

 

 

I knew there had to be a simple reason and there was me thinking that Capita and Equita were in cahoots......

 

Wash my mouth out with soap !!!

[brassnecked]

.

.

 

 

I knew there had to be a simple reason and there was me thinking that Capita and Equita were in cahoots......

 

Wash my mouth out with soap !!!

Well that M6 Toll will cost them a fiver for a Berlingo, so they want £150, or a tenner for a Sprinter, so they want £220. No seriously TT there is something severely wrong with any tie up between the office contractor, and the bailiffs they instruct belonging to the SAME parent company. If they were City traders it could amount to illegal Insider dealing,

Edited September 4, 2013 by brassnecked
replace R with E LOL

[tomtubby]

No seriously TT there is something severely wrong with any tie up between the office contractor, and the bailiffs they instruct belonging to the SAMR parent company. If they were City traders it could amount to illegal Insider dealing,

 

.

 

brassnecked.....well put.

 

I will be making the FOI request to both local authorities later today. I am not in any way trying to find fault with Coventry but will merely be trying to establish how many companies tendered for their bailiff services contract and how it was advertised. I will be asking the same of Birmingham.

 

Now.... what about this scenario. Lets assume that Birmingham did have a "competetive tender" process in place and the tender was properly advertised.......I wondered WHO makes the ultimate decesion as to WHICH company to award the contract to? What's the chances that the decesion process is all down to Capita?

[unclebulgaria67]

TT

 

You could write to Mr Pickles asking him to look into this issue and to provide information on the legislation that councils have to follow to ensure no conflict of interest happens between suppliers of different council services.

[tomtubby]

TT

 

You could write to Mr Pickles asking him to look into this issue and to provide information on the legislation that councils have to follow to ensure no conflict of interest happens between suppliers of different council services.

 

.

.

My lips are sealed at this present time suffice to say....... that I am in contact with some very "important" people on this serious issue. !!!

[brassnecked]

.

 

brassnecked.....well put.

 

I will be making the FOI request to both local authorities later today. I am not in any way trying to find fault with Coventry but will merely be trying to establish how many companies tendered for their bailiff services contract and how it was advertised. I will be asking the same of Birmingham.

 

Now.... what about this scenario. Lets assume that Birmingham did have a "competetive tender" process in place and the tender was properly advertised.......I wondered WHO makes the ultimate decesion as to WHICH company to award the contract to? What's the chances that the decesion process is all down to Capita?

 

Odds on or better than evens, that Capita have a significant input into the decision making process, if not doing it all themselves to "save the council the bother"

[ploddertom]

.

 

brassnecked.....well put.

 

I will be making the FOI request to both local authorities later today. I am not in any way trying to find fault with Coventry but will merely be trying to establish how many companies tendered for their bailiff services contract and how it was advertised. I will be asking the same of Birmingham.

 

Now.... what about this scenario. Lets assume that Birmingham did have a "competetive tender" process in place and the tender was properly advertised.......I wondered WHO makes the ultimate decesion as to WHICH company to award the contract to? What's the chances that the decesion process is all down to Capita?

 

Have to be honest and say you will find Coventry every bit as bad as any other. After all they allowed one of their contractors - Newlyn - to send a Bankruptcy letter to one of their residents for £42-50!.

[brassnecked]

Have to be honest and say you will find Coventry every bit as bad as any other. After all they allowed one of their contractors - Newlyn - to send a Bankruptcy letter to one of their residents for £42-50!.

Absolutely PT, none of them come out of this with "clean hands" so to speak

[ploddertom]

Absolutely PT, none of them come out of this with "clean hands" so to speak

 

In my view the only way thiswill ever get cleaned up is by an example being made of offending Bailiffs - advance fee fraud being an example, and the company behind them having their "licence" removed for aiding & abetting them.

[brassnecked]

In my view the only way thiswill ever get cleaned up is by an example being made of offending Bailiffs - advance fee fraud being an example, and the company behind them having their "licence" removed for aiding & abetting them.

As Capita appear to run the whole shebang, this will not happen short of a revolution and politicians heads on pikes outside Traitors Gate, with Capita removed from any involvement in government function at all levels. they are too big, have too much influence and Capita are corrosive to democracy, as they run beyond control in effect.

Edited September 4, 2013 by brassnecked

[tomtubby]

Have to be honest and say you will find Coventry every bit as bad as any other. After all they allowed one of their contractors - Newlyn - to send a Bankruptcy letter to one of their residents for £42-50!.

 

.

.

Coventry Council have had some dreadful bad press about their bailiff provider (Newlyn) but a few days ago they published a new Bailiff Guide. I haven't had a chance to read it yet. Hopefully there are a lot of improvements. Weekend reading.....

[ploddertom]

.

.

Coventry Council have had some dreadful bad press about their bailiff provider (Newlyn) but a few days ago they published a new Bailiff Guide. I haven't had a chance to read it yet. Hopefully there are a lot of improvements. Weekend reading.....

 

I think you may find that this "new" guide is based on the current information given by Mr Pickles recently and they are making a song and dance as being the first Council to sign up to it, More smoke & mirrors I am afraid.

[tomtubby]

I think you may find that this "new" guide is based on the current information given by Mr Pickles recently and they are making a song and dance as being the first Council to sign up to it, More smoke & mirrors I am afraid.

 

A Journalist send me a link to their new Bailiff Guide on Monday but so far I have not had time to read it.