Team effort – Unlawful "Head H" bailiff fees for the attention of MoJ

[outlawla]

Surely then the fundamental basis ids that they have actually removed them physically to another location say a saleroom,for sale, and incurred advertising cost, if not the head h is void no matter what council and bailiff claIm

 

So implementing the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 and the amendments SI 1993/773 and SI 1998/295, rather than accept the council's interpretation of them, the part of the schedule, detailing "Head H" would be:

 

 

(H) Where no sale takes place by reason of payment or tender in the Circumstances referred to in Regulation 45(4);

For fees incurred in respect of advertising

.

 

Either:

(i) £24.50, or

(ii) the actual costs incurred, to a maximum of 5% of the amount in respect of which the liability order was made.

whichever is the greater.

[brassnecked]

So implementing the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 and the amendments SI 1993/773 and SI 1998/295, rather than accept the council's interpretation of them, the part of the schedule, detailing "Head H" would be:

 

That would be the reasonable assumption, but council and bailiffs think they can make it up as they go along.

[outlawla]

To gain an advantage for themselves, Jacobs, as well as Rossendales and Bristow & Sutor distort the intended purpose for what the "H" fee is for, and manage to influence councils.

 

 

"A redemption fee of £24.50 is applicable on all cases where a levy (seizure) takes place."

 

This is total rubbish and typical of what these chancers are indoctrinating local authorities with. They somehow manage to fox heads of legal departments within councils who are on six figure salaries. What are they paid for? Unbelievable!

[brassnecked]

This all needs teasing out on the consultation sub-forum, under fee structure

[GPuffin]

It looks like I may be about to contest this very fee. Thanks to PT for pointing it out to me.

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?339632-Council-Tax-Bristow-amp-Sutor

I will of course keep all documentation, if it is on any help to yall Im happy to share.

[outlawla]

It looks like I may be about to contest this very fee. Thanks to PT for pointing it out to me.

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?339632-Council-Tax-Bristow-amp-Sutor

I will of course keep all documentation, if it is on any help to yall Im happy to share.

 

Thanks!

 

Just read your thread. I agree with ploddertom....the charge will probably be the levy and £24.50 "H" fee. If so, they will be charging £64 for the levy. That would be levying on an outstanding debt of £1,440 (I think).

 

Just one other thing.....was the council's Liability Order cost £40?

[GPuffin]

Hi Outlaw

 

I have replied with more detail in my thread as it made more sense to do that than hijacking this one.

 

The other thing tho - yes it was £40.

[outlawla]

Thanks to the contributor offering additional evidence for the complaint to the MoJ.

 

Much appreciated.

[outlawla]

Updating the 'Head H fee' saga....

 

.....Officers at North East Lincolnshire council are aware – and if they're not, they should be – that I'm after making sure some of these become accountable (in an arrow suited sort of way) for the part they play in the systematic fraud in council tax liability order applications and the subsequent crime they abet with their appointed bailiff firm Rossendales.

 

....Allowing their bailiffs to unlawfully charge the 'Head H' fee has been put to them. The council denies it has records of debtors who have been charged this fee. The evidence it supplied me in writing suggests they do hold, or can access this information if they so wanted.

 

Getting nowhere fast with this. The Information Commissioner (ICO) has been effective only in exposing North East Lincolnshire Council as liars. Ha! Like I needed their help determining this.

 

After several months, keeping up the charade that it didn't have records of the number of Head H fees charged to council tax payers, it changed its mind. It decided it did hold details, only so it could invoke section 12 of the Freedom of Information Act, exempting the release as doing so would exeed the appropriate cost limit.

 

It claimed it would cost £40,000 in man hours to manually go through their records to determine the number of cases where the fee was imposed by Rossendales.

 

It must be of vital importance that this information is kept from the public. The body overseeing Information Requests (ICO), since discovering they lied, have backed North East Lincolnshire Council 100%, thus allowing them to keep guarded this incriminating evidence. Not surprising when the Government department responsible for them is the Ministry of Justice – the same as is in-bed with these private bailiff firms.

 

The ICO accepts the clowncil's £40,000 estimate as fact even, though they were lied to over holding the information in the first place. The decision was appealed and escalated to the First-tier Tribunal (Information Rights), and as you'd expect, the appeal was struck out.

 

• The ICO's decision notice – Head H
  
• First-tier Tribunal Notice of Appeal
  
• ICO's application to strike-out appeal
  
• Appellant's reply to ICO's application
  
• Tribunal's decision notice to strike-out appeal
  

Without going into detail, the Tribunal Judge appeared not to understand the points being argued about why it was thought the Information Commissioner made the wrong decision. It was for this reason, the Judge struck-out the appeal. This has serious consequences as it has set a precedent for the Information Commissioner, who is now relying on the Judge's hashed decision to apply for another strike-out in regards another refusal to supply data relating to Attendance charges (van fees) charged by Rossendales.

 

• The ICO's decision notice – van fee
  
• First-tier Tribunal Notice of Appeal
  
• ICO's application to strike-out appeal
  

It has been noticed how thorough the ICO are when composing their reports. What sticks out like a sore thumb in the Commissioner's application to strike-out the appeal (second case) is the reference throughout the report to a 'Head F fee' in the Head H case before. Was this a joke?

 

It seems submitting complaints to the Information Commissioner and appeals to the Tribunal is inadvertently allowing these corrupt officials to remain in employment at the taxpayer's expense for the purpose of harbouring these criminals. The fraud department of Humberside police have been sent details and are supposedly assessing this, but what are the chances that once assessed, they'll be unable to investigate as they'll find nothing to suggest any crime has been committed?

Edited March 9, 2013 by outlawla

[lookinforinfo]

If Copeland borough Council can get it right why can't the others?

http://www.copeland.gov.uk/default.aspx?page=793

 

see Section 1 [H]

[outlawla]

If Copeland borough Council can get it right why can't the others?

http://www.copeland.gov.uk/default.aspx?page=793

 

see Section 1 [H]

 

They got it right but a bit muddled:

 

H - Where no sale takes place by reason of payment Reasonable costs and fees incurred in respect of or tender in the circumstances referred to in advertising, either regulation 45(4): (i) £24.50 or the actual costs incurred, to a maximum of 5per cent. of the amount in respect of which the Liability Order was made, whichever is the greater.

I think this is the unravelled version:

 

H - Where no sale takes place by reason of payment or tender in the circumstances referred to in regulation 45(4):

 

Reasonable costs and fees incurred in respect of advertising

 

either

 

(i) £24.50, or

 

(ii) the actual costs incurred, to a maximum of 5per cent. of the amount in respect of which the Liability Order was made, whichever is the greater.

 

 

[tomtubby]

[EDIT]

 

Of great concern to me is that every day we receive enquiries where a HEAD H FEE has been charged and in every case the bailiff company is Bristow & Sutor. It would seem that this particular bailiff company have somehow convinced each local authority that they represent that charging this fee is legal.

 

You only have to look back at posts on this forum to see examples.

[brassnecked]

check back outlawla's post#28 on this tread to see what the bailiff take on head h and other dubiously applied fees is, and their attempts to justify it by quoting opinion from Counsel, in exactly the way Retail loss Prevention do to justify their bog roll Invoices on their website.

 

Unless goods have been removed and advertised for sale,, don't think, it can lawfully be charged, Bristow & Sutor, need a slap or winding up, as in they would then be "Busted & Stupid"

[outlawla]

A Borough Council supplied details relating to Council Tax enforcement and the number of times a "Header H" fee was incurred in cases since 2009/10. The figure submitted was 167. The significance here is, goods had not been removed in any of the 167 cases.

 

It seems Rossendales are the bailiff contractor for this local authority.

 

Full details can be found here:

 

Council Tax Regulations – Schedule 5 bailiff fees

 

EDIT:

 

Similarly, another Borough Council outsourcing its enforcement operations to Rossendales has revealed for the same period that a "Header H" fee was incurred in 76 cases. Goods had only been removed in 4 of these cases. Details here....

Edited March 14, 2013 by outlawla

[outlawla]

So the Police don't have powers to access councils' / Rossendales accounts, even when presented with evidence that potentially £millions throughout the country is being pick-pocketed from the least affluent of society.

 

Even if evidence is obtained (it is now – see above post) they have implied that they won't investigate because of the technicalities of proving fraud.

 

Another reminder of what the deputy head of fraud at the Crown Prosecution Service said:

"

People who commit fraud, in any walk of life, should know that the scale and technicality of a case is no barrier to bringing it to justice. At the heart of any complex fraud is a simple notion of dishonesty which is something that we can all understand

.

 

 

Edited March 15, 2013 by outlawla

[brassnecked]

the police are as corrupt as the bailiffs and councils then so should investgate themselves. Wait a minute they already do, IPC.......

[outlawla]

The stumbling blocks 'apparently' are persuading the accused to reveal particulars of their accounts. That plays into the hands of the Police because the Information Commissioner and Tribunal Judge says there's no requirement, because doing so would exceed the appropriate cost limit. It's likely NELC (claiming £40K) are lying anyway because two other councils, also contracted to Rossendales, (ONE & TWO) have supplied the information without resistance.

 

The force's excuse about proving beyond reasonable doubt that they are acting dishonestly is lame in the extreme. If the boss of a bailiff company dealing with 140 or so local authorities doesn't know the law surrounding distress, there must be other criminal charges to add on top of fraud.

[brassnecked]

The stumbling blocks 'apparently' are persuading the accused to reveal particulars of their accounts. That plays into the hands of the Police because the Information Commissioner and Tribunal Judge says there's no requirement, because doing so would exceed the appropriate cost limit. It's likely NELC (claiming £40K) are lying anyway because two other councils, also contracted to Rossendales, (ONE & TWO) have supplied the information without resistance.

 

The force's excuse about proving beyond reasonable doubt that they are acting dishonestly is lame in the extreme. If the boss of a bailiff company dealing with 140 or so local authorities doesn't know the law surrounding distress, there must be other criminal charges to add on top of fraud.

Not to mention Misfeance in Public Office for council officials, and even councillors complicit in the stitch ups.

[outlawla]

Some of the hoops you're made to jump through when trying to obtain information that none of the authorities want you to have.

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]42499[/ATTACH]

 

Unsuccessful appeal to Tribunal for the release of schedule 5 Head H fee data.

 

• First-tier Tribunal Notice of Appeal
  
• ICO's application to strike-out appeal
  
• Appellant's reply to ICO's application
  
• Tribunal's decision notice to strike-out appeal
  

The ongoing Tribunal on Attendance charges (van fees) imposed by Rossendales.

 

• First-tier Tribunal Notice of Appeal
  
• ICO's application to strike-out appeal
  

[brassnecked]

Anyone would think they have something to hide.

[outlawla]

More results in...this time Blaby District Council. It's a pity these figures can't be confirmed as they don't seem right.

 

This is what they say:

 

Since 2009/10, out of 5,383 cases sent to bailiffs to levy distress for Council Tax, the Head H fee was charged 8 times only and goods removed in 3 cases.

Edited March 20, 2013 by outlawla

[outlawla]

With the record number of Head H fees, it looks like South Ribble Borough Council's outsourced contractor, Jacobs, are looking favourite for winning the ****** of the year award.

 

Since 2009/10, the Head H fee was imposed 1,395 times, which corresponds to goods being removed in 0 cases.

[ploddertom]

Maybe an ad should go in the local paper advising the populace of this so they can all reclaim their unlawful fees.

[outlawla]

Without a doubt.

 

The only thing missing from the information is how much they've been charged. Then again I would put money on the figure miraculously being £24.50 for each imposed charge, which happens to be a figure they would least likely to be asked to provide receipts for the cost of advertising goods which had never been removed.

[ploddertom]

My sums make this £34177-50 - not bad for doing nothing. I imagine the Council condoned this?