XXXXXXXXXX – Rossendales

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

As Bazzoka Boo would say BOWLOCKS:madgrin:

[outlawla]

Have you asked your MP to raise matters to the attention of those who walk the corridors of power? or explain where the buck stops to these questionable Court procedures?

 

WD

 

The Police are dismissing this as being anything which is criminal. They are saying it related to civil procedures.

 

Perhaps a letter to the local MP, asking them to raise questions with the Ministry of Justice would be a good idea.

 

 

I've submitted information about the dodgy liability order applications to the MoJ along with plenty of other related stuff, bailiffs etc. I've had acknowledgement through the post that this will be analysed and published with an account of the views expressed.

[brassnecked]

Since when was fraud and extortion not criminal? Ah yes when the police who are cosy with the perpatrators say so.

[outlawla]

Local Government Ombudsman

Beverly House

17 Shipton Road

York

YO30 5FZ

 

Complaint ref: ........

 

 

01/05/12

 

Dear Sir/Madam

 

 

Re: Complaint against North East Lincolnshire Council – Decision appeal

 

 

I’m writing concerning the LGO’s 29 March 2012 final decision. After going through all the correspondence relating to this complaint, it is evident that LGO’s Mr Xxxxxx who was assigned this case has demonstrated incompetence equal to the authority itself in conducting an unbiased investigation into the concerns I raised.

 

The undertaking has been a complete whitewash. Aspects of my complaint have been cherry picked by the investigating officer, leaving a significant part of the complaint completely ignored. This enabled him to focus on what can be manipulated to advantage both the organisation and council and allow the complaint to be ridden out of the system unfounded. This process – involving a technique working on the assumption that the person bringing the complaint was born yesterday – has been instrumental in providing a “get-out-of-jail free” card for the investigator by identifiying that the law won’t allow an investigation.

 

Several points submitted on my complaint form have at no point been addressed. For example item 6 raised issues about the bailiff visit, querying the Council's Income & Collection Manager’s need to accompany the bailiff. Items 7 and 8 dealt with Rossendale’s non compliance with the National Standard for Enforcement Agent's Code of Practice, and the council’s defendce of its contractor failing to comply.

 

The unlawful penalty fee I detailed in item 3 of my original complaint has mistakenly been understood to mean an unlawful bailiff fee. I assume this from the brief reference in item 5.10 of the final decision document. I clearly stated that the unlawful penalty fee was explained in the supplied correspondence.

 

Two of the three documents I provided, “550xxxxxxx – 23 Sept 11” and “Chief Executive stage 3 response 6 Dec 11” went into detail about the council and court’s negligence surrounding liability order applications, more so the latter. Whether or not the law allows the Ombudsman to investigate, the evidence contained should have been alerted to the powers most suitable to investigate, be that the Police, Serious Fraud Office or whatever. I believe these concerns can not simply be ignored just because they fall outside the powers of the Ombudsman to investigate.

 

The unlawful penalty fee was in fact the summons costs imposed by the council, detailed in items 4 and 6 of the submitted document “Chief Executive stage 3 response 6 Dec 11”.

 

It seems Mr Xxxxxxx may not have been thorough when considering the contents of the documents I supplied. His final notice, item 5.8 raised the matter of the Magistrates’ court breaching the Data Protection Act, stressing that the Information Commissioner was the body set up in law to deal with breaches of that Act.

 

There were two references in the “6 Dec 11” document to indicate I had already completed the complaints procedure with the Information Commissioner.

 

I have also raised concerns with the Parliamentary Ombudsman about the Commissioner’s decision not to take action against the court for breaches of the Data Protection Act, as well as other issues. These include the cour’t negligence in dealing with liability order applications and the Commissioner’s handling of the council’s breaches of the Data Protection Act through its contractor Rossendales. Relating to previous grievances, the Parliamentary Ombudsman is also aware that two Rossendales’ bailiffs while in the employ of the council had attempted to defraud me where the circuit Judge ruled in favour of one of them while dismissing the other complaint because the bailiff no longer worked for the firm.

 

The seriousness of all these allegations of crime to have just been brushed a side on the basis of something so lame as falling outside the powers of the organisation to investigate is shocking. For all these organisations to have been made aware of the various malpractices and do nothing, amounts to gross negligence.

 

This is a statement from the Serious Fraud Office where one of the organisations it refers to is the Local Government Ombudsman. I can only speculate why the LGO has not alerted other organisations to the comprehensive evidence I have supplied the Ombudsman over the years.

“...

Generally, if these organisations found, through their investigations and with the information provided to them that there was serious or complex fraud that we should look at, then they would usually refer the matter to us

...”

Joint investigation

 

A perfect opportunity had arisen for separate organisations to form joint investigations, encompassing North East Linconshire council abetting Rossendales’ malpractice, HMCTS and the authority’s council tax liabity order applications etc. etc...

 

However, it seemed more convenient to play the “outside the powers of the Ombudsman” card, than to collaborate in a joint operation.

 

I believe the LGO is presently under the scrutiny of the Communities and Local Government Commons Select Committee. Judging from the written submitted evidence, this is going to be one hell of a grilling and deservedly so.

 

I’ve read the written evidence submitted to the Select Committee by the Parliamentary Ombudsman which interestingly contained the following:

“

Both my Office and the LGO are committed to providing a comprehensive and seamless service to the public wherever possible.

 

A 2007 Regulatory Reform Order empowers our offices to conduct joint investigations, enabling us to work together collaboratively to address the issues raised by the complainant.

 

This arrangement for handling complaints is increasingly being used with specialist staff in each office working closely together to improve the efficiency of the investigation and the benefit to the member of the public as a result

.”

Making an outrageous statement like this makes one to wonder if the Parliamentary and Local Government Ombudsman have any clue about how complaints are dealt with in reality.

 

Tricks of the trade

 

Another noticeable pattern in the way LGO staff conduct investigations is when the investigator requests additional evidence in borderline cases. This also works on the assumption that the complainant was born yesterday.

 

It works like this:

 

The complainant supplies further information, either to reinforce his case or argue the validity of a complaint that the investigator had preliminarily dismissed. The investigator will have already decided not to pursue the complaint and despite forthcoming valid evidence, will continue regardless with the original decision and concoct his report accordingly.

 

This has happened in both my complaints to the LGO.

 

On this occasion the investigator telephoned me seeking to obtain additional information. The conversation turned to the factually incorrect statement contained in his provisional view at item 4.3. The council must have either lied to him or he wrongly assumed the action taken by the Council. The facts were that the council had not asked that I provide details of the account I paid money to in response to my letter explaining I had already made payment.

 

The investigator it seems had made his decision and the newly acquired facts were not going to get in the way. The truth was that the council had made no such request until after securing costs and the liability order from the court.

 

He then (as originally intended) could not side with the council and criticise me for not complying with the council’s request to provide details of the account I paid money to. This was not possible as it was a fabrication.

 

However, there was a solution; the contingency (Plan-B) which he details in items 5.6 and 5.12 of his final view that it was open to me to provide the Council with details of payments without the Council having to ask for them. I wonder what a further contingency would have been (Plan-C) if I’d subsequently provided this evidence.

 

The document “Council reply 07 Nov”, the third submitted as part of the original evidence detailed the fact I had sent a letter to the council containing my payment details. This complied with the council’s request that I send dates and amounts of payments. This request was not made until the council secured its liability order and costs from the court.

 

I had gone to the trouble of printing off relevant bank statements. If the investigator had looked at the correspondence he would have noticed I had offered to supply these to the authority.

 

The investigator played down Grimsby Magistrates’ court’s role in the fiasco. Again item 5.6 of his final view emphasised it was my responsibility to make sure the correct details were entered when paying my Council Tax bill on line.

 

It would not have been possible to enter these incorrect details if the court had not sent me specific details of other council tax paying residents.

 

Which Local Government Ombudsman did I submit my complaint to?

 

I have become confused after reading an information leaflet on the LGO website “Complaints about bailiffs”. I don’t know whether there are two organisations or if the complaints process is just a lottery.

 

An example is given where a man was compensated for the time spent pursuing a complaint with his council. The matter of complaint, in comparison with mine, appears to be insignificant. However, my complaints did not warrant an invetigation and both dismissed.

Examples of some complaints we have considered

 

Mr X cleared an outstanding agreed council tax debt (after a court hearing) by sending cheque to council. But the account had already been referred to the council's bailiffs. The council failed to tell the bailiffs that the debt had been cleared. The bailiffs visited Mr X and left a letter at his house (no one was at home). We decided Mr X had been put to unnecessary time and trouble in pursuing his complaint with the council and obtained compensation of £50 for him.

 

If there was consistency in the way complaints are dealt with, the LGO would now be seeking an amount equivalent to the four years I’ve been pursuing complaints with the council and other organisations without any redress.

 

It seems officials benefiting from covering up corruption have no conscience or regard for the months, years and in some instances, lifetimes, which are taken from those fighting injustice. Councils protect their reputation at whatever cost and this extends to lying if it will cover up maladministration. I have no idea what the Council's Local Government Ombudsman's Link Officer has communicated to the investigator that would influence his decisions. As such I request you send details of all communications that the council has had with the LGO in connection with the complaint.

 

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. I believe this would have the maximum chance of some resolution to the seemingly endless saga where a repeated pattern occurs of one organisation after the other states that either some or all aspects of the complaint fall outside their powers to investigate.

 

Details of my complaints to LGO and PHSO:

 

Local Government Ombudsman

 

First complaint

 

Complaint reference: 09014 xxx/..../xx | Investigator: Mr Xxxx Xxxx

Tel: 01904 38.... | Email: ...........lgo.org.uk

 

Review reference: 09014 xxx/..../xx | Investigator: Mrs Xxxx Xxxx

Tel: 01904 38.... | Email: ...........lgo.org.uk

 

This complaint

 

Complaint reference: 11016xxx | Investigator: Xxxx Xxxx

Tel: 01904 38.... | Email: ...........lgo.org.uk

 

Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

 

Complaint reference: EN-124xxx/xxxx | Assessor: Xxxx Xxxx

Tel: 0300 061 .... | Email: ......ombudsman.org.uk

 

Please note this correspondence will also be sent to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman and the Communities and Local Government Commons Select Committee.

 

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

Outlawla

Edited May 1, 2012 by outlawla

[brassnecked]

Here we go round the lemon tree Again! As to that link, well the Ombudsman had better be watching his back

Edited May 1, 2012 by brassnecked

[outlawla]

Continuation of the Blunderside Police Farce correspondence Post #117

 

Humberside Police Headquarters

Priory Police Station

Priory Road

Hull

HU5 5SF

 

06/05/12

 

 

Dear Chief Constable

 

 

Re: Decision taken not to investigate allegations of fraud

 

I have found it necessary to write and express my concerns about Humberside Police’s Economic Crime Section. From my two separate dealings with the section, it appears to be its policy to fob off complaints where allegations of fraud are made against local authorities.

 

Although relating specifically to Humberside Police, I suspect this policy will be common to all forces in the UK. Nevertheless I would like some assurance that the issue surrounding what seems to be the blanket refusal to investigate the type of crime I’ve twice reported, is looked into.

 

I’ll not go into a lot of detail surrounding the incidents I reported. In relation to my initial complaint where North East Lincolnshire council attempted to defraud me through its contracted bailiff firm, I have already submitted plenty of details and evidence during the process, including the entirely pointless exercise involving the force’s complaints section and the IPCC.

 

The incident was dealt with by Detective Inspector Xxxx Xxxx, and the reference: PXX/1x/0x.

 

The second was dealt with by Detective Sergeant Xxxx Xxxx, the reference being MCU/EXX/MXX. The complaint was in connection with the authority’s council tax liability order applications.

 

The economic crime section stated this was not a criminal matter despite being advised prior to this decision that I would be submitting additional evidence in relation to the allegations.

 

I will not make the same mistake of pursuing the second incident through the force’s Complaints section or IPCC.

 

I have found it to be the case with organisations having complaint procedures formed by statute such as the LGO, ICO and IPCC that they have legislation written so the odds are stacked against the complainant. To begin with, an application would list examples of what would and what wouldn’t be considered a valid complaint. It is bewildering to think that the British public have somehow been indoctrinated to believe that a complaint must conform to some standard for it to be valid and qualify for an organisation’s consideration.

 

Complaint bodies like these, which dictate to a person what they can and cannot be aggrieve by, are blatantly a sham and therefore, in effect, entirely useless.

 

Chief Inspector Xxxx Xxxx was the person dealing with the initial complaint which progressed to the Professional Standards Branch. The IPCC reference is: 20xx/0x0x0x.

 

It was concluded that Mr Xxxx would not be recording the incident as a complaint against the Police and stated it was a civil matter between myself and the local authority where the proper authority to deal with such complaints would be the LGO.

 

It seems whichever organisation you raise concerns with it will be stated that another should have been contacted instead. Incidentally the same complaint was made to the LGO which stated that allegations of crime are to be taken up with the Police.

 

On 27 April 2007 in the House of Lords, a Home Office Minister stated that “A bailiff or any other person who dishonestly charges for work that has not been done will be committing an offence under the Fraud Act 2006.“

 

My complaint to the Police fitted the description stated by the Home Office Minister, however it was considered a civil matter by Humberside Police and fobbed off as such at every stage.

 

I believe each individual Police force has too much autonomy. There is apparently no interest taken by the Home Office in issuing guidance to police forces on the application of the provisions of the Fraud Act 2006 with regards bailiff operations. It considers decisions on whether and how to investigate a crime rest solely with the police and that such operational issues are the ultimate responsibility of the chief officer of the force concerned.

 

I have no intention of taking the complaint route dictated by the force’s policy with this issue. That has proved completely ineffective in the past. Consequently I would like my concerns to be thoroughly looked into, and some meaningful feedback into the cause of the apparent negligence in investigating the kind of crime I have reported.

 

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

Outlawla

Edited May 7, 2012 by outlawla

[brassnecked]

Good luck with this outlawla, we watch with interest, as the powers that be are backed inexorably into that corner, and will eventually have to do the right thing.

[reallyinthecrap]

agreed! Best Of Luck!

 

Looks like im not far behind you with my problems!

 

(well maybe a few years) - excellent letters as well

[outlawla]

Not convinced this will be dealt with.

 

Most likely deciding who's best to fob-off the complaint.

 

[outlawla]

[brassnecked]

What a load of bollox outlawla, they are trying NOT to investigate, as it may badly affect their own credibility.

[outlawla]

What is most notable with this response is that they have not found it necessary to address 95% of what I put in my letter to the Chief Constable (who will not even have any idea I sent it).

 

The main thing is though, I addressed it to the Chief Constable so theoretically I'm now able to take the issue to the Humberside Police Authority who I'm sure will fob it off. The only thing I'm not certain of is what excuse they'll use this time.

[unclebulgaria67]

What can you do, if the Police will not investigate. Can you go to the CPS directly ? Or if that avenue is not open, would you have to seek a judicial review, which I presume would be ridiculously expensive ?

[outlawla]

Probably need to bombard Home Department cabinet ministers with correspondence, but I doubt anything would make them step outside their bubbles isolating them from the real world. You can judge the sort of interest they show when questions are put to them by MP's in parliament.

 

If you look on the Theyworkforyou website there's some proof that they think everything can take care of itself.

[old bill]

There is a procedure under the Criminal Procedures Rules called Laying An Information. However, you need to have very good and strong evidence in order to follow this particular procedure. Basically, it can result in the police being forced to take action.

[outlawla]

There is a procedure under the Criminal Procedures Rules called Laying An Information. However, you need to have very good and strong evidence in order to follow this particular procedure. Basically, it can result in the police being forced to take action.

 

Thanks for the pointer to the legislation.

 

Just had a quick look at the Criminal Procedures Rules (PART 7). Before I get too embroiled in the legislation I noticed it states under 7.2(5) that where an offence can be tried only in a magistrates’ court, the prosecutor must serve an information on the court officer or present it to the court not more than 6 months after the offence alleged.

 

Rossendales/council's several attempts to defraud me go back much further than 6 months so unless this can be tried in another court where the time limits are different I may have missed the boat.

 

In fact this was the response I got from the Magistrates' Courts a bit nearer the time of the attempted fraud when I complained about a levy under R46 of the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations.

 

"

There is a limitation of time that applies to starting court proceedings and section 127 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 states that a magistrates' court shall not hear a complaint unless the complaint is made within 6 months from the time the matter of complaint arose.

"

 

[old bill]

Thanks for the pointer to the legislation.

 

Just had a quick look at the Criminal Procedures Rules (PART 7). Before I get too embroiled in the legislation I noticed it states under 7.2(5) that where an offence can be tried only in a magistrates’ court, the prosecutor must serve an information on the court officer or present it to the court not more than 6 months after the offence alleged.

 

Rossendales/council's several attempts to defraud me go back much further than 6 months so unless this can be tried in another court where the time limits are different I may have missed the boat.

 

The offences you are referring to are summary offences. The sort of offences bailiffs tend to commit are indictable offences, those where the maximum penalty is a term of imprisonment of five years or more. In the case of summary offences, the court will only issue a summons. With indictable offences, it is an arrest warrant. This is because they can be tried at a magistrates courts or a Crown Court. However, the most serious offences - sometimes referred to as Schedule 1 offences - can only be tried at a Crown Court.

 

Summary offences are time-limited to six months from the date of offence for the commencement of proceedings. With indictable offences, because offences can stretch over a much longer period - years, in some cases - the six-month time-limit does not apply. Please be aware, however, that once an arrest warrant is issued, it must be executed within six months of issue, after which it must be returned to the court of issue. Also, once an arrest warrant is issued, it is emailed straight to the police in PDF format for execution.

[outlawla]

The offences you are referring to are summary offences. The sort of offences bailiffs tend to commit are indictable offences, those where the maximum penalty is a term of imprisonment of five years or more. In the case of summary offences, the court will only issue a summons. With indictable offences, it is an arrest warrant. This is because they can be tried at a magistrates courts or a Crown Court. However, the most serious offences - sometimes referred to as Schedule 1 offences - can only be tried at a Crown Court.

 

Summary offences are time-limited to six months from the date of offence for the commencement of proceedings. With indictable offences, because offences can stretch over a much longer period - years, in some cases - the six-month time-limit does not apply. Please be aware, however, that once an arrest warrant is issued, it must be executed within six months of issue, after which it must be returned to the court of issue. Also, once an arrest warrant is issued, it is emailed straight to the police in PDF format for execution.

 

Therein lies the dilemma. It would need to be decided who should be the subject of the arrest. Possibly the bailiffs who attempted the fraud, but as this involved two employed by Rossendales at the time, maybe the arrest warrant would need to be issued to the CEO of the enforcement firm itself.

 

Another possibility is the CEO of the council because the local authority has overall responsibility for the actions of its enforcement contractor. There could be no argument of this responsibility as the authority has incriminated itself by defending Rossendales actions and their unlawful fees. Fortunately I have written evidence of the council aiding and abetting Rossendales which even extends to letters from the Chief Executive. Of course there is the potential to include a greater number of offences if the CEO of the council was issued the arrest warrant, as he has already effectively admitted they allow Rossendales to impose unlawful charges on alleged debtors.

 

I intend also to take the option of submitting a report to the serious fraud office. When this is complete it will encompass every aspect of the council tax racket, including innappropriate profit from liability order application and its bailiff operations.

Edited June 1, 2012 by outlawla

[old bill]

Therein lies the dilemma. It would need to be decided who should be the subject of the arrest. Possibly the bailiffs who attempted the fraud, but as this involved two employed by Rossendales at the time, maybe the arrest warrant would need to be issued to the CEO of the enforcement firm itself.

 

Another possibility is the CEO of the council because the local authority has overall responsibility for the actions of its enforcement contractor. There could be no argument of this responsibility as the authority has incriminated itself by defending Rossendales actions and their unlawful fees. Fortunately I have written evidence of the council aiding and abetting Rossendales which even extends to letters from the Chief Executive. Of course there is the potential to include a greater number of offences if the CEO of the council was issued the arrest warrant, as he has already effectively admitted they allow Rossendales to impose unlawful charges on alleged debtors.

 

I intend also to take the option of submitting a report to the serious fraud office. When this is complete it will encompass every aspect of the council tax racket, including innappropriate profit from liability order application and its bailiff operations.

 

Unfortunately, it's not as simple as that. In fact, fraud can be a very complex animal. I presume that the two Rossendales bailiffs added fees for phantom visits, in which case, as long as you have evidence of that and, ideally, an independent witness who can corroborate that, fine. It is best to first point out the offence to the miscreants and if they then repeat the offence, you are in a much stronger position, legally, as you can then show you had warned them that their actions amounted to an offence and they ignored you.

 

With regard to the CEO of Rossendales it has to be shown that they and other company officers and managers either knew fraud was taking place and did nothing or were actively encouraging or condoning it. That sort of evidence, in my experience, can only be obtained by interviewing company officers and managers under caution in a recorded interview suite at a police station. However, the CEO and other directors of Rossendales are vicariously liable for the actions of the bailiffs they employ, as is the company of Rossendales.

 

In respect of the CEO of the local authority and the local authority itself, your most successful route is likely to be through Civil Procedures Rules and citing the council's vicarious liability for the actions of Rossendales' bailiffs. There is a lesser burden of proof in a civil court than there is in a criminal court, balance of probability as opposed to beyond all reasonable doubt.

 

Most of the cases the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) deals with are referred to them by local police force Economic Crime Units or the Serious & Organised Crime Agency (SOCA). Sometimes, they have cases referred to them by H.M. Revenue & Customs (HMRC), Office of Fair Trading (OFT) or the Financial Services Authority (FSA). The sums of money the SFO usually deal with are in excess of £2million per case.

 

I would be inclined to let the Rossendale bailiffs well and truly hang themselves before going for their throats. If you are going to apply for arrest warrants, I would strongly advise you to seek competent professional legal advice from a criminal solicitor if you have no current or previous law enforcement or legal practice experience.

 

Sorry if some of what I have posted up may appear negative, but in my experience, as soon as Rossendales and the local authority get wind the bailiffs have been arrested on warrant, the sewage treatment works near Rossendales offices and the local authority's main offices will be working overtime.

 

If you want to send me a PM with a timeline of the events in your case which I can then look at and assess, I will then post up on this thread the best course of action, which other caggers can then benefit from.

Edited June 1, 2012 by old bill

[unclebulgaria67]

When do 'administrative mistakes or billing mistakes' become criminal ?

 

Unless someone admits to deliberate behaviour that is illegal, they could just explain that they made a mistake.

[old bill]

When do 'administrative mistakes or billing mistakes' become criminal ?

 

Unless someone admits to deliberate behaviour that is illegal, they could just explain that they made a mistake.

 

When someone says, "Oh sh*t! We can't make that charge!" It happened with my local authority.They levied a charge for gas safety checks. The law says they have to bear the cost out of rent receipts, not the tenant. Give them credit where it's due, as soon as they found out, everyone affected was contacted promptly and asked whether they wanted the money refunded or offset against future rent payments.

 

As to when administrative or billing mistakes become criminal, you have to look at the bigger picture and note how many times the error has occurred, whether there is legislation that allows them to levy a charge and under what circumstances, whether that legislation has been complied with or not complied with, ad infinitum. If fraud is involved, it does not need to be deliberate; being reckless is enough. At the end of the day, the person suspected of such "administrative and billing mistakes" has to prove they are, in fact, administrative and billing mistakes. In reality, they don't get an easy ride where public money is involved.

[outlawla]

Unfortunately, it's not as simple as that. In fact, fraud can be a very complex animal. I presume that the two Rossendales bailiffs added fees for phantom visits, in which case, as long as you have evidence of that and, ideally, an independent witness who can corroborate that, fine. It is best to first point out the offence to the miscreants and if they then repeat the offence, you are in a much stronger position, legally, as you can then show you had warned them that their actions amounted to an offence and they ignored you.

 

With regard to the CEO of Rossendales it has to be shown that they and other company officers and managers either knew fraud was taking place and did nothing or were actively encouraging or condoning it. That sort of evidence, in my experience, can only be obtained by interviewing company officers and managers under caution in a recorded interview suite at a police station. However, the CEO and other directors of Rossendales are vicariously liable for the actions of the bailiffs they employ, as is the company of Rossendales.

 

In respect of the CEO of the local authority and the local authority itself, your most successful route is likely to be through Civil Procedures Rules and citing the council's vicarious liability for the actions of Rossendales' bailiffs. There is a lesser burden of proof in a civil court than there is in a criminal court, balance of probability as opposed to beyond all reasonable doubt.

 

Most of the cases the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) deals with are referred to them by local police force Economic Crime Units or the Serious & Organised Crime Agency (SOCA). Sometimes, they have cases referred to them by H.M. Revenue & Customs (HMRC), Office of Fair Trading (OFT) or the Financial Services Authority (FSA). The sums of money the SFO usually deal with are in excess of £2million per case.

 

I would be inclined to let the Rossendale bailiffs well and truly hang themselves before going for their throats. If you are going to apply for arrest warrants, I would strongly advise you to seek competent professional legal advice from a criminal solicitor if you have no current or previous law enforcement or legal practice experience.

 

Sorry if some of what I have posted up may appear negative, but in my experience, as soon as Rossendales and the local authority get wind the bailiffs have been arrested on warrant, the sewage treatment works near Rossendales offices and the local authority's main offices will be working overtime.

 

If you want to send me a PM with a timeline of the events in your case which I can then look at and assess, I will then post up on this thread the best course of action, which other caggers can then benefit from.

 

 

You can obviously read Rossendales like a book. You are correct in your assumption that phantom visits were the cause of having £42.50 fees imposed by the first bailiff. This was of course defended at every stage by the council, not because it believed Rossendales that the visits had taken place, but because of the difficulty to prove something had not happened.

 

Although my focus is on North East Lincolnshire council and Rossendales; councils and private bailiff firms are almost carbon copies of each other. With regards the SFO and the £2million per case, it is likely the accumulated figure would easily exceed this.

 

NELC could be a template case from which extended investigations into our councils could be based.

 

This is one of the fees (head H) NELC admits to allowing Rossendales to charge unlawfully. Reading these forums tells us that they are not the only pair who are up to this.

 

Extract Fraud Office – Header H.pdf

 

Likewise, the accumulated figure for all councils inappropriately profiting from liability order applications would easily exceed £2million.

 

However, in respect of the particular Rossendales' events, I'll PM details and hope this could benefit other caggers who I'm sure will have experienced similar events. I'll PM details

Edited June 1, 2012 by outlawla

[old bill]

You can obviously read Rossendales like a book. You are correct in your assumption that phantom visits were the cause of having £42.50 fees imposed by the first bailiff. This was of course defended at every stage by the council, not because it believed Rossendales that the visits had taken place, but because of the difficulty to prove something had not happened.

 

Although my focus is on North East Lincolnshire council and Rossendales; councils and private bailiff firms are almost carbon copies of each other. With regards the SFO and the £2million per case, it is likely the accumulated figure would easily exceed this.

 

NELC could be a template case from which extended investigations into our councils could be based.

 

This is one of the fees (head H) NELC admits to allowing Rossendales to charge unlawfully. Reading these forums tells us that they are not the only pair who are up to this.

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]35758[/ATTACH]

 

Likewise, the accumulated figure for all councils inappropriately profiting from liability order applications would easily exceed £2million.

 

However, in respect of the particular Rossendales' events, I'll PM details and hope this could benefit other caggers who I'm sure will have experienced similar events.

 

A local authority can only make and levy such charges as the law permits. This also applies equally to contractors acting on their behalf. If council officers know this is going on, but elected councillors do not, then it is up to Council Tax payers to bombard them with letters and emails letting them know what is going on. The threat of being ousted or public exposure does tend to focus their minds.

[outlawla]

Been taken by surprise this morning by actally getting a response to the following appeal letter:

 

Local Government Ombudsman

Beverly House

17 Shipton Road

York

YO30 5FZ

 

Complaint ref: ........

 

 

01/05/12

 

Dear Sir/Madam

 

 

Re: Complaint against North East Lincolnshire Council – Decision appeal

 

 

I’m writing concerning the LGO’s 29 March 2012 final decision. After going through all the correspondence relating to this complaint, it is evident that LGO’s Mr Xxxxxx who was assigned this case has demonstrated incompetence equal to the authority itself in conducting an unbiased investigation into the concerns I raised.

 

The undertaking has been a complete whitewash. Aspects of my complaint have been cherry picked by the investigating officer, leaving a significant part of the complaint completely ignored. This enabled him to focus on what can be manipulated to advantage both the organisation and council and allow the complaint to be ridden out of the system unfounded. This process – involving a technique working on the assumption that the person bringing the complaint was born yesterday – has been instrumental in providing a “get-out-of-jail free” card for the investigator by identifiying that the law won’t allow an investigation.

 

Several points submitted on my complaint form have at no point been addressed. For example item 6 raised issues about the bailiff visit, querying the Council's Income & Collection Manager’s need to accompany the bailiff. Items 7 and 8 dealt with Rossendale’s non compliance with the National Standard for Enforcement Agent's Code of Practice, and the council’s defendce of its contractor failing to comply.

 

The unlawful penalty fee I detailed in item 3 of my original complaint has mistakenly been understood to mean an unlawful bailiff fee. I assume this from the brief reference in item 5.10 of the final decision document. I clearly stated that the unlawful penalty fee was explained in the supplied correspondence.

 

Two of the three documents I provided, “550xxxxxxx – 23 Sept 11” and “Chief Executive stage 3 response 6 Dec 11” went into detail about the council and court’s negligence surrounding liability order applications, more so the latter. Whether or not the law allows the Ombudsman to investigate, the evidence contained should have been alerted to the powers most suitable to investigate, be that the Police, Serious Fraud Office or whatever. I believe these concerns can not simply be ignored just because they fall outside the powers of the Ombudsman to investigate.

 

The unlawful penalty fee was in fact the summons costs imposed by the council, detailed in items 4 and 6 of the submitted document “Chief Executive stage 3 response 6 Dec 11”.

 

It seems Mr Xxxxxxx may not have been thorough when considering the contents of the documents I supplied. His final notice, item 5.8 raised the matter of the Magistrates’ court breaching the Data Protection Act, stressing that the Information Commissioner was the body set up in law to deal with breaches of that Act.

 

There were two references in the “6 Dec 11” document to indicate I had already completed the complaints procedure with the Information Commissioner.

 

I have also raised concerns with the Parliamentary Ombudsman about the Commissioner’s decision not to take action against the court for breaches of the Data Protection Act, as well as other issues. These include the cour’t negligence in dealing with liability order applications and the Commissioner’s handling of the council’s breaches of the Data Protection Act through its contractor Rossendales. Relating to previous grievances, the Parliamentary Ombudsman is also aware that two Rossendales’ bailiffs while in the employ of the council had attempted to defraud me where the circuit Judge ruled in favour of one of them while dismissing the other complaint because the bailiff no longer worked for the firm.

 

The seriousness of all these allegations of crime to have just been brushed a side on the basis of something so lame as falling outside the powers of the organisation to investigate is shocking. For all these organisations to have been made aware of the various malpractices and do nothing, amounts to gross negligence.

 

This is a statement from the Serious Fraud Office where one of the organisations it refers to is the Local Government Ombudsman. I can only speculate why the LGO has not alerted other organisations to the comprehensive evidence I have supplied the Ombudsman over the years.

“...

Generally, if these organisations found, through their investigations and with the information provided to them that there was serious or complex fraud that we should look at, then they would usually refer the matter to us

...”

Joint investigation

 

A perfect opportunity had arisen for separate organisations to form joint investigations, encompassing North East Linconshire council abetting Rossendales’ malpractice, HMCTS and the authority’s council tax liabity order applications etc. etc...

 

However, it seemed more convenient to play the “outside the powers of the Ombudsman” card, than to collaborate in a joint operation.

 

I believe the LGO is presently under the scrutiny of the Communities and Local Government Commons Select Committee. Judging from the written submitted evidence, this is going to be one hell of a grilling and deservedly so.

 

I’ve read the written evidence submitted to the Select Committee by the Parliamentary Ombudsman which interestingly contained the following:

“

Both my Office and the LGO are committed to providing a comprehensive and seamless service to the public wherever possible.

 

A 2007 Regulatory Reform Order empowers our offices to conduct joint investigations, enabling us to work together collaboratively to address the issues raised by the complainant.

 

This arrangement for handling complaints is increasingly being used with specialist staff in each office working closely together to improve the efficiency of the investigation and the benefit to the member of the public as a result

.”

Making an outrageous statement like this makes one to wonder if the Parliamentary and Local Government Ombudsman have any clue about how complaints are dealt with in reality.

 

Tricks of the trade

 

Another noticeable pattern in the way LGO staff conduct investigations is when the investigator requests additional evidence in borderline cases. This also works on the assumption that the complainant was born yesterday.

 

It works like this:

 

The complainant supplies further information, either to reinforce his case or argue the validity of a complaint that the investigator had preliminarily dismissed. The investigator will have already decided not to pursue the complaint and despite forthcoming valid evidence, will continue regardless with the original decision and concoct his report accordingly.

 

This has happened in both my complaints to the LGO.

 

On this occasion the investigator telephoned me seeking to obtain additional information. The conversation turned to the factually incorrect statement contained in his provisional view at item 4.3. The council must have either lied to him or he wrongly assumed the action taken by the Council. The facts were that the council had not asked that I provide details of the account I paid money to in response to my letter explaining I had already made payment.

 

The investigator it seems had made his decision and the newly acquired facts were not going to get in the way. The truth was that the council had made no such request until after securing costs and the liability order from the court.

 

He then (as originally intended) could not side with the council and criticise me for not complying with the council’s request to provide details of the account I paid money to. This was not possible as it was a fabrication.

 

However, there was a solution; the contingency (Plan-B) which he details in items 5.6 and 5.12 of his final view that it was open to me to provide the Council with details of payments without the Council having to ask for them. I wonder what a further contingency would have been (Plan-C) if I’d subsequently provided this evidence.

 

The document “Council reply 07 Nov”, the third submitted as part of the original evidence detailed the fact I had sent a letter to the council containing my payment details. This complied with the council’s request that I send dates and amounts of payments. This request was not made until the council secured its liability order and costs from the court.

 

I had gone to the trouble of printing off relevant bank statements. If the investigator had looked at the correspondence he would have noticed I had offered to supply these to the authority.

 

The investigator played down Grimsby Magistrates’ court’s role in the fiasco. Again item 5.6 of his final view emphasised it was my responsibility to make sure the correct details were entered when paying my Council Tax bill on line.

 

It would not have been possible to enter these incorrect details if the court had not sent me specific details of other council tax paying residents.

 

Which Local Government Ombudsman did I submit my complaint to?

 

I have become confused after reading an information leaflet on the LGO website “Complaints about bailiffs”. I don’t know whether there are two organisations or if the complaints process is just a lottery.

 

An example is given where a man was compensated for the time spent pursuing a complaint with his council. The matter of complaint, in comparison with mine, appears to be insignificant. However, my complaints did not warrant an invetigation and both dismissed.

Examples of some complaints we have considered

 

Mr X cleared an outstanding agreed council tax debt (after a court hearing) by sending cheque to council. But the account had already been referred to the council's bailiffs. The council failed to tell the bailiffs that the debt had been cleared. The bailiffs visited Mr X and left a letter at his house (no one was at home). We decided Mr X had been put to unnecessary time and trouble in pursuing his complaint with the council and obtained compensation of £50 for him.

 

If there was consistency in the way complaints are dealt with, the LGO would now be seeking an amount equivalent to the four years I’ve been pursuing complaints with the council and other organisations without any redress.

 

It seems officials benefiting from covering up corruption have no conscience or regard for the months, years and in some instances, lifetimes, which are taken from those fighting injustice. Councils protect their reputation at whatever cost and this extends to lying if it will cover up maladministration. I have no idea what the Council's Local Government Ombudsman's Link Officer has communicated to the investigator that would influence his decisions. As such I request you send details of all communications that the council has had with the LGO in connection with the complaint.

 

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. I believe this would have the maximum chance of some resolution to the seemingly endless saga where a repeated pattern occurs of one organisation after the other states that either some or all aspects of the complaint fall outside their powers to investigate.

 

Details of my complaints to LGO and PHSO:

 

Local Government Ombudsman

 

First complaint

 

Complaint reference: 09014 xxx/..../xx | Investigator: Mr Xxxx Xxxx

Tel: 01904 38.... | Email: ...........lgo.org.uk

 

Review reference: 09014 xxx/..../xx | Investigator: Mrs Xxxx Xxxx

Tel: 01904 38.... | Email: ...........lgo.org.uk

 

This complaint

 

Complaint reference: 11016xxx | Investigator: Xxxx Xxxx

Tel: 01904 38.... | Email: ...........lgo.org.uk

 

Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

 

Complaint reference: EN-124xxx/xxxx | Assessor: Xxxx Xxxx

Tel: 0300 061 .... | Email: ......ombudsman.org.uk

 

Please note this correspondence will also be sent to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman and the Communities and Local Government Commons Select Committee.

 

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

Outlawla

 

 

[old bill]

Been taken by surprise this morning by actally getting a response to the following appeal letter:

 

 

 

 

 

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