The penultimate sentence in the letter from the LGO is very telling.

Ha-ha! It's true.

Never picked up on that. In other words, let's get this out the way as soon as possible to improve on our efficiency score....

We have a rigorous monitoring regime to check on the quality of work..

The problem is their rigorous monitoring regime is more concerned with how courteous investigating officers are to complainants when communicating by telephone, or how quickly they answer calls, i.e. before a set target of rings. Let's concentrate on the stuff of least relevance to deflect the true ineffectiveness of the organization.

Lol! I doubt it. I think you will find it has more to do with Capita cocking things up again. Councils are slowly but surely beginning to realise that outsourcing is not as cost-effective as it's cracked up to be.

Completely missed your point there but I'm sure both are valid

Expect a response from senior Weasel from the LGO explaining that some of your complaint is outside their scope of inquiry and for other matters there is insufficient evidence.

I realise Outlawla that you probably do not expect anything to happen and would fall over if they actually decided there were issues that required further inquiry.

The LGO is in a corner and is looking for a safe exit.

 

Expect a response from senior Weasel from the LGO

 

Should that not read Senor Weasel?

From: Xxxx

To: [email protected]

Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] ; [email protected]; [email protected]

Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2012 11:49 PM

Subject: Complaint against North East Lincolnshire Council

Dear Ms Xxxxx

Complaint against North East Lincolnshire Council (Ref: 11 xxx xx0)

I'm writing in connection with the Ombudsman's 11 June 2012 correspondence with the above reference number.

I'm pleased this case will be reviewed, however, I'd like to emphasise some points I made in my 1 May 2012 letter.

As I suggested in that correspondence, the most sensible way forward – taking into account the number of organisations involved – would be for a joint investigation conducted between the PHSO and the LGO. This would ideally consider all cases listed in the letter. In my opinion, none of the complaints have been satisfactorily concluded, and further research has revealed more evidence of maladministration. I believe the additional evidence would warrant re-opening my previous case with reference: 09xxx14 453/XXX/sq.

My belief that this case should re-open is reinforced by reading past cases were in similar circumstances the LGO investigated.

It is apparent the Ombudsman has in fact investigated and upheld complaints similar to those I submitted, where in my case they were not upheld.

Two examples follow:

1) LGO Report on an investigation into complaint number 10 007 469 against Slough Borough Council (4 April 2011)

If you revisit my file (case reference 09xxx14 453/XXX/sq.), the complaint reveals, under similar circumstances that the LGO decided against investigating on the grounds that there was another course of action I could take regarding the levy (Magistrates' court). The investigator maintained his decision, even after I had complained to the court but was time barred on a six months restriction.

2) LGO Report on an investigation into complaint numbers 95A01890 & 95A04826 against London Borough of Ealing (24 July 1997)

The same case (reference 09xxx14 453/XXX/sq.), dealt with similar issues. Phantom visits were also made and fraudulently charged for by bailiffs, but for some reason the LGO concluded that there was no need to investigate.

Above were similar circumstances and no investigation.

A "van charge" was also imposed by the bailiff before first having a valid levy.

I also requested all details of communications that the council had with the LGO in connection with the complaint. This would include the council's LGO Link Officer's communications to the investigator that would influence his decisions.

Yours sincerely

They are doing their best not to investigate as the whole system is likely to be topple if and when it is reported in the National press when they want to kick the government, so hopefully not too long now.d.

They are doing their best not to investigate as the whole system is likely to be topple if and when it is reported in the National press when they want to kick the government, so hopefully not too long now.d.

If anything make you determined to see this solipsistic propagandist get what's coming to her, paignforchange.com/2011/11/bailiffs-%e2%80%93-why-they-are-needed/

"]this is it.........

Bailiffs – why they are needed

 

By Julie Green-Jones

 

It may surprise the general public to know that 4 million cases are issued to bailiffs each year with a value of over £1billion. That is enough revenue to pay the salaries of 30,000 newly qualified nurses and 20,000 new police recruits. Is it right that this amount of money just remains uncollected? Of course it is not, that is why bailiffs are needed.

 

Last year alone 2.97 million summonses were issued for non-payment of council tax of which 1.4 million were issued to bailiffs. More than 90 per cent of the general public who are liable to pay council tax, pay it voluntarily, however, unfortunately they have to pay considerably more than they should to subsidise those that do not pay. Statistics show that between 2003 and 2010 there is more than £2.5 billion worth uncollected Council Tax.

 

Last year alone bailiffs collected over £650 million in respect of fines and taxes for central and local government. Money, which left un-recovered, would have to be subsidised by the general public who pay their bills. Despite these phenomenal amounts only 1 per cent of cases referred to bailiffs result in the removal of debtors goods.

 

If those that pay want to pay less, they need to support and encourage the use of bailiffs.

It's ok everybody, she only has the interests of the general public at heart....nothing to do with the £millions it brings her.

If anything make you determined to see this solipsistic propagandist get what's coming to her, paignforchange.com/2011/11/bailiffs-%e2%80%93-why-they-are-needed/%3C/p%3E%3Cp%3E"]this is it.........

 

It's ok everybody, she only has the interests of the general public at heart....nothing to do with the £millions it brings her.

What a smarmy holier than thou attitude from one who employs the likes of Mr Boast. what more can one say about the nasty taste this leaves even to mention her name.

I remembered getting the opportunity to photograph Rossendale's fleet of Tow-Trucks; those its bailiffs use for "attending to remove", and was lucky enough to get this shot – actually in action.

In fact it was the same bailiff attending my home who had secretly levied a vehicle (not mine incidentally) – imposing both van and levy fees on the same visit a week or so earlier.

Rossendale's Universal Goods Transportation Services

Lucky I didn't delete archives.

If this was the same van that Rossers arrived in with the view to tow away a vehicle it had secretly levied on the same day, this could well provide evidence that Rossendales do unlawfully charge attendance fees. As an added bonus this will implicate North East Lincolnshire council as it has defended their actions.

Even if it was detailed in a bailiff/council Service Level Agreement (which it wouldn't), a bailiff wishing to "Levy and Remove" on the same visit and incur those fees, would need to arrive with sufficient transport - vans etc, to remove the goods it anticipated it would distrain upon. I'd expect the law would take a very dim view if this bailiff was caught tying rope to each vehicle's bumper to secure his goods.

Extract of Rossendales account

The bailiff attended your property on the 5th March and levied on a vehicle....A levy fee and van costs were incurred in respect of this visit....

 

At this stage the bailiff was attending with a view to obtaining payment in full or to removing goods. The bailiff re-attended your property on the 17th March [Day of photo] but could gain no response and left a Final Notice.

 

A snippet from North East Lincolnshire council

5) Levy on a vehicle, Rossendale's have already stated in their letter to you dated 21st July, that when they attended your property on 5th March and levied on a vehicle they left notification of this levy [A lie] in an envelope marked for your attention under the security door. They state that the vehicle would not have been removed until further checks have been made with DVLA and undertaken a HPI check.

 

Regarding their charges, I have been assured by Rossendales that all charges used are set down in statute and you would have been notified of these, by North East Lincolnshire Council....

 

 

I remembered getting the opportunity to photograph Rossendale's fleet of Tow-Trucks; those its bailiffs use for "attending to remove", and was lucky enough to get this shot – actually in action.

 

In fact it was the same bailiff attending my home who had secretly levied a vehicle (not mine incidentally) – imposing both van and levy fees on the same visit a week or so earlier.

Rossendale's Universal Goods Transportation Services

 

Lucky I didn't delete archives.

 

If this was the same van that Rossers arrived in with the view to tow away a vehicle it had secretly levied on the same day, this could well provide evidence that Rossendales do unlawfully charge attendance fees. As an added bonus this will implicate North East Lincolnshire council as it has defended their actions.

 

Even if it was detailed in a bailiff/council Service Level Agreement (which it wouldn't), a bailiff wishing to "Levy and Remove" on the same visit and incur those fees, would need to arrive with sufficient transport - vans etc, to remove the goods it anticipated it would distrain upon. I'd expect the law would take a very dim view if this bailiff was caught tying rope to each vehicle's bumper to secure his goods.

 

Extract of Rossendales account

 

 

A snippet from North East Lincolnshire council

Like to see Rossers tow a 3.5 tonne Sprinter with that.....

Like to see Rossers tow a 3.5 tonne Sprinter with that.....

I caught sight of the bailiff....

It doesn't even have the capacity to fit his sandwiches in.

Ask him if Rossendales would like to have the police seize their vans and have them crushed. All it needs is a signed order from a magistrate.

Ask him if Rossendales would like to have the police seize their vans and have them crushed. All it needs is a signed order from a magistrate.

What ground OB so we can ruin Mrs Green-Jones's day when someone gets them to do it.

If a vehicle is used in the commission of a criminal offence or series of criminal offences, the police can seize it and, if necessary, seek an order from the courts to have it crushed. If my memory serves me correctly, they are called Forfeiture Orders and Destruction Orders. The ICO can do the same with IT equipment seized. Trading Standards do the same with dodgy and counterfeit goods.

If a vehicle is used in the commission of a criminal offence or series of criminal offences, the police can seize it and, if necessary, seek an order from the courts to have it crushed. If my memory serves me correctly, they are called Forfeiture Orders and Destruction Orders. The ICO can do the same with IT equipment seized. Trading Standards do the same with dodgy and counterfeit goods.

Thanks OB yes of course Forfeiture Orders, not often talked about, but hiding in the background, would be good if they were used against bailiffs, JBW in one other current thread for example., and the other ongoing saga where they falsified an RTA amongst other potential and actual criminal behaviour!

If a vehicle is used in the commission of a criminal offence or series of criminal offences, the police can seize it and, if necessary, seek an order from the courts to have it crushed. If my memory serves me correctly, they are called Forfeiture Orders and Destruction Orders. The ICO can do the same with IT equipment seized. Trading Standards do the same with dodgy and counterfeit goods.

Thanks for this information. Had not known about these orders and never thought about approaching the issue from this angle.

I'm in the process of preparing a complaint for the SFO where Rossendales charges are just a small part of the overall report into North East Lincolnshire council's involvement in Council Tax recovery. Bailiff fees, specifically attending with a vehicle, are what 'm researching and working on at the moment. I wondered if it would be worth expanding on these orders, i.e, Forfeiture and Destruction.

I've come across something while researching these charges which may be of general interest, owing to the number reporting on this forum who are getting stung with this fee.

The website: Dawkins, specialist certificated bailiffs, details the following:

Dawkins Newsletter 1.4

 

Landlords' Options on Bailiff's First Visit & Matters Arising

 

 

A recent alteration to our standard form of Warrant to Distrain gives, at the bottom, three options for the Landlord relating to his instructions to the bailiff.

 

The first two, viz: 5 days or 3 days, relate to the amount of time the Landlord wants to allow the defaulting tenant during which he must pay the outstanding arrears. In either case the time period relates to the Walking Possession Agreement.

 

The third option "Levy & Remove Immediately" presupposes that on the bailiff's first visit he will arrive with sufficient transport - vans etc, to remove the goods distrained upon. This situation will arise if the tenant is unwilling or unable to provide either cash, or bankers draft immediately. It's worth bearing in mind that the Landlord is not obliged to enter into a Walking Possession Agreement - this is always concessionary - and he can always "Levy & Remove" on the first visit if he wishes.

 

As often as not in this situation payment is made. However, it is important to note that the tenants will still have to pay for the transport costs incurred - even if the goods are not removed. (Distress for Rent Rules 1988 - Appendix 1, Paragraph 5)

Although this is clearly in connection with "Rent Arrears", I wondered if levying and removing goods as described would apply in distress cases for Council Tax.

Of course it is unlikely that any council's 'Service Level Agreement' would contain conditions allowing it. Bailiffs also would never actually arrive with sufficient transport - vans etc, to remove the goods it anticipated distraining upon. Anyone have any thoughts?

I'll answer your posts together, if I may, BN and Outlawla. In order for a Forfeiture Order and a Destruction Order to be made in respect of any vehicle used by a bailiff or bailiff company, it would first have to be shown that the vehicle was used in the commission of a criminal act. For example, if a bailiff removed goods from someone's home and had no right in law to do so, it would amount to a criminal act - probably, Burglary - and the police would have the legal provision to seize the vehicle. As to Forfeiture and Destruction Orders, usually, the police or, more commonly, the CPS will apply to the court for these orders to be made. Without a Destruction Order, a reputable vehicle dismantler will refuse to accept any vehicle brought to them by the police.

Without regard to service agreements between bailiff companies and their clients, firstly, the terms of such agreements MUST comply with the law in every respect. If they don't, both bailiff company and client are well and truly in the brown and smelly stuff as an agreement cannot exist in law which allows the parties to it to do anything which is unlawful or illegal. Section 1, Criminal Law Act 1977 renders any agreement between two or more parties to follow a course of action which, if carried through, would amount to an offence at law, a criminal offence (Statutory Conspiracy). The maximum penalty under this provision is a term of imprisonment of up to 10 years or that prescribed by statute, whichever is the greater. At the end of the day, the onus is on the bailiff and their client to prove they have acted lawfully.

I'll answer your posts together, if I may, BN and Outlawla. In order for a Forfeiture Order and a Destruction Order to be made in respect of any vehicle used by a bailiff or bailiff company, it would first have to be shown that the vehicle was used in the commission of a criminal act. For example, if a bailiff removed goods from someone's home and had no right in law to do so, it would amount to a criminal act - probably, Burglary - and the police would have the legal provision to seize the vehicle. As to Forfeiture and Destruction Orders, usually, the police or, more commonly, the CPS will apply to the court for these orders to be made. Without a Destruction Order, a reputable vehicle dismantler will refuse to accept any vehicle brought to them by the police....

Interesting!

Probably a bit much expecting the police to have the legal provision to seize the vehicle, in instances where the vehicle has not so much been used in the commission of a criminal act, rather as a means of exploiting legislation for the purpose of defrauding alleged debtors with statutory fees.

....Without regard to service agreements between bailiff companies and their clients, firstly, the terms of such agreements MUST comply with the law in every respect. If they don't, both bailiff company and client are well and truly in the brown and smelly stuff as an agreement cannot exist in law which allows the parties to it to do anything which is unlawful or illegal. Section 1, Criminal Law Act 1977 renders any agreement between two or more parties to follow a course of action which, if carried through, would amount to an offence at law, a criminal offence (Statutory Conspiracy). The maximum penalty under this provision is a term of imprisonment of up to 10 years or that prescribed by statute, whichever is the greater. At the end of the day, the onus is on the bailiff and their client to prove they have acted lawfully.

Something I've noticed about these contracts is they appear (in various degrees) to limit the bailiffs actions to a level below what they may legally be permitted to impose on debtors.

The conditions are of course meaningless when breached as authorities clearly have policies which require staff dealing with complaints and queries to fob them off with statements such as their contractor's "charges are set down in statute and they are governed by National Standards for Enforcement Agents."

This is relevant to Dawkins specialist certificated bailiffs and the "Levy & Remove Immediately" option. Maybe this is permitted in law but limited by council's Service Level Agreements.

It's about time I acted on the Chief Constable's negligence........

Letter to the Humberside Police Authority

Humberside Police Authority

Pacific Exchange

40 High Street

Hull

HU1 1PS

12/08/12

Dear Sir/Madam

Re: Humberside Police Crime Management Branch Ref: xx/xx

I'm writing to complain to the Humberside Police Authority about the force's negligence in handling a complaint made for the attention of the Chief Constable. The complaint (copy enclosed) was made in reference to Humberside Police’s Economic Crime Section where in connection with two separate incidents it demonstrated that it was its policy not to take seriously allegations of fraud when made against a local authority.

The letter was dealt with by Xxxx Xxxxx, Detective Chief Superintendent – Head of Crime, and his reply (copy enclosed) was in itself clearly another example of the Police fobbing off members of the public. The complaint was barely addressed and probably not read, which demonstrated a lack of responsibility to the taxpaying public and struck me as being arrogant, especially considering who it is that pays his salary.

All records are on file and so are available, but here is a sample of Humberside Police’s attitude to allegations of fraud in connection with North East Lincolnshire council's bailiff contractor Rossendales Ltd:

If you require any or all correspondence relating to the two occasions I needed to involve Humberside Police’s Economic Crime Section, these can be sent as email attachments. Letters involving the IPCC and Humberside Police's Professional Standards Department can also be sent if required; in fact correspondence involving the LGO and North East Lincolnshire council which are all relevant are also archived.

To add an important note here, I've read on the Humberside Police Authority's website that a formal complaint against a Chief Officer will be overseen by the Independent Police Complaints Commission. I have been down this route before, and quite frankly my experience of the IPCC’s involvement has been, metaphorically, a "final kick in the teeth" with no demonstration of impartiality.

The outcome, like all complaints procedures dictated by statute, was completely biased towards the organisation and had merely been an exercise in riding out the complaint as unfounded. I therefore have no confidence whatsoever in the ability of the IPCC to conduct an impartial assessment of the issues and would appreciate that this is not referred to the IPCC, the force itself or the Professional Standards Department.

Hopefully where all other departments, organisations etc., chose the route of least resistance which has been to turn a blind eye, I hope the Humberside Police Authority will find the moral responsibility and the cojones to look seriously into these issues.

Yours sincerely

outlawla

Why not copy the correspondence to these contacts posted up on another thread by oldbill, and send a complaint to OFT regarding Rossendales credit fitness

Department for Business Innovation & Skills (BIS) [Responsible for the OFT]

1 Victoria Street

London

SW1H 0ET

The Rt Hon Dr Vince Cable MP (Secretary of State)

The Rt Hon Norman Lamb MP (Minister of State)[Portfolio includes Consumer Affairs]

Baroness Wilcox (Parliamentary Under-Secretary)[Former Chair of National Consumer Council]

Martin Donnelly (Permanent Secretary)

Correspondence to Vince Cable, Norman Lamb and Baroness Wilcox should be addressed to the Ministerial Correspondence Unit.

Department for Communities & Local Government

Eland House

Bressenden Place

London

SW1E 5DU

The Rt Hon Eric Pickles MP (Secretary of State)

The Rt Hon Grant Shapps MP (Minister of State)[Housing & Local Government]

Sir Bob Kerslake (Permanent Secretary)

Ministry of Justice

102 Petty France

London

SW1H 9AJ

The Rt Hon Kenneth Clarke PC QC MP (Lord Chancellor & Secretary of State)

The Rt Hon Jonathan Djanogly MP (Minister of State) [Portfolio includes H.M. Courts & Tribunal Service - HMCTS, bailiffs)

Sir Suma Chakrabarti KCB (Permanent Secretary)

Why not copy the correspondence to these contacts posted up on another thread by oldbill, and send a complaint to OFT regarding Rossendales credit fitness......

Good idea, I'll put that next on my list. The OFT must be about the only organisation that hasn't been sent details.

Another that needs to go on the list BN has kindly reproduced in his post, is the Home Office, who have ultimate responsibility for policing. The contact details for the Home Office are as follows -

Home Office

Direct Communications Unit

2, Marsham Street,

London

SW1P 4DF

Email: [email protected]

The ones to contact are -

Rt Hon Theresa May MP (Home Secretary)

Rt Hon Nick Herbert (Minister of State for Policing)

its well worth contacting the Minister for Justice I emailed this week and the more we can send over the better!