Newlyn Bailiffs

[ploddertom]

And I thought this one was sorted weeks ago, jus goes to show you can't trust them.

[outlawla]

I don't know why Newlyn are being so smug about the LGO and council's determination of the complaints. After-all, investigators will be under pressure to uphold as few complaints as possible to maintain the illusion of high standards in the respective departments.

[Tariq2009]

hi guys back again need your opinion i didnt gave up i kept hassling Newlyn to give me bailiffs names .

I have complained CIVEA they asked me to write final letter stating Formal Complaint at the top and then after that response CIVEA will take the case on board now i got the letter listed below as in response from newlyn i called the county listed on the letter they dont have these names on their list any help guys to take this further .You guys must be wondering why i haven't i dropped the case as they have waived the charges well i am doing it for the other people that may have or will suffer in future by these [problem]mers .Thanks

 

[EDIT]

Edited August 22, 2013 by seanamarts
Removed letter- Bailiff names visible

[outlawla]

Good work! Keep up the pressure. Looks like only the second one is on the Certificated Bailiff Register

[ploddertom]

If Watford County Court have no knowledge of them then again it is back to writing to Newlyn asking for the dates they were Certificated on. Notthat I don't believe them but I wouldn't put it past them to have applied with a different spelling possibly.

[unclebulgaria67]

Why is the letter from Newlyn headed 'without prejudice', if it is simple letter just stating the names of the bailiffs used in this case ? Why would they not want this to be used in a court ?

 

Whoever wrote that letter must have considered that they did not want a court to be provided with a copy of this in evidence. I doubt that Newlyn routinely head all of their letters 'without prejudice'.

 

Something a little odd here ?

[Tariq2009]

here is the 2 bailiffs name that was provided by council to me again one registered and newlyn did not mention it in their letter

 

Dear Mr *****,

 

I apologise for the delay in responding to you.

 

The names of the bailiffs that attended your property are [EDIT]

 

 

 

 

 

I**** D*****

Assistant Local Taxation Manager

Huntingdonshire District Council

Edited August 22, 2013 by seanamarts
names removed

[Tariq2009]

it is annoying i got all the evidence of council and newlyn of fraud and cant get anything done :mad2:

[seanamarts]

hi guys back again need your opinion i didnt gave up i kept hassling Newlyn to give me bailiffs names .

I have complained CIVEA they asked me to write final letter stating Formal Complaint at the top and then after that response CIVEA will take the case on board now i got the letter listed below as in response from newlyn i called the county listed on the letter they dont have these names on their list any help guys to take this further .You guys must be wondering why i haven't i dropped the case as they have waived the charges well i am doing it for the other people that may have or will suffer in future by these [problem]mers .Thanks

 

[EDIT]

 

Please can you edit the letter so that ALL names including your's are not visible please.

When you have done this you can then replace it.

 

Thank you

 

seanamarts

 

Site Team

[Tariq2009]

latest update on this issue

 

Mr xxxxxxxxxxx

[email protected]

 

11 November 2013

Dear Mr xxxxxxxxxxxxx,

Re: Freedom of Information Act and Environmental Information Regulations – FOI and EIR Request No. 3093

I am writing in respect of your recent enquiry for information held by the Authority under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act / Environmental Information Regulations. We have dealt with your request under the Freedom of Information Act / Environmental Information Regulations.

 

You requested: “Last year my council account (xxxxxxxx) was passed to the bailiff company under freedom of information act, I like to know what information was passed to the bailiff and also like to know what kind of checks and information carried on me by bailiffs

Also like to know why suddenly bailiff and the council decided to back off this case as both council and bailiff were in agreement that I was wrong and their procedure was 100% legal .

Also like see any payment proof that my summons money is acutely paid to the court as I strongly believe that council only issue summons to make extra money of tax payers thanks

 

Your request for information has now been considered and I am not obliged to supply the information you have requested under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

 

This letter acts as a Refusal Notice under Section 17 of the Freedom of Information Act.

 

The exemption applied is S40 Personal information.

(1)Any information to which a request for information relates is exempt information if it constitutes personal data of which the applicant is the data subject.

As the information you are asking for is about you, your request has been forwarded to Legal to be dealt with as a request under Section 7 of the Data Protection Act. Under the Data Protection Act, the council has 40 calendar days in which to respond to a request for personal information from the date of receipt. Further details relating to your request will be sent to you under separate cover.

 

I apologise that your request will not be met at this time but if you have any further information needs in the future then please contact me.

 

If you have a complaint about the handling of your enquiry then please contact Freedom of Information Officer in the first instance quoting “FOI Request No. 3093” at one of the following addresses:

E-mail: [email protected]

 

Letter: FOI Requests

Pathfinder House

St Mary’s Street

Huntingdon

PE29 3TN

Fax: 01480 388464

[outlawla]

....Also like see any payment proof that my summons money is acutely paid to the court as I strongly believe that council only issue summons to make extra money of tax payers thanks....

 

Huntingdonshire District Council pay £3 to the Magistrates' court from the costs you pay them.

 

The magistrates' Courts Fees (Amendment No. 2) Order 2010

 

....As the information you are asking for is about you, your request has been forwarded to Legal to be dealt with as a request under Section 7 of the Data Protection Act. Under the Data Protection Act, the council has 40 calendar days in which to respond to a request for personal information from the date of receipt. Further details relating to your request will be sent to you under separate cover....

 

That's a bonus.....you got away with the £10 application fee.

 

EDIT:

 

I spoke too soon, see next post.....

Edited November 15, 2013 by outlawla

[Tariq2009]

Huntingdonshire District Council pay £3 to the Magistrates' court from the costs you pay them.

 

The magistrates' Courts Fees (Amendment No. 2) Order 2010

 

 

 

That's a bonus.....you got away with the £10 application fee.

 

How can they justify charging £80 when the court never deal with summon issued by Huntingdon council because when you go on the date given you are told by usher to go to the council office and sort out with them there is no attending in front of judge because summon wasn't issued by court its issued by council which make me ask the question is it Legal for huntingdon council to charge £80 and issue the summons .

 

I went yesterday and paid them £10 for SAR let see if they are going to provide me with documents of all the communication that happen between newlyn and council or they going to hold back any information

[outlawla]

.....its issued by council which make me ask the question is it Legal for huntingdon council to charge £80 and issue the summons.....

 

The council will say its issued by the court, meaning the bulk complaint list will be signed by someone authorised by the Justices' Clerk.

 

What is not lawful is profiting from recovery through the Magistrates' Court.

Edited November 15, 2013 by outlawla

[Tariq2009]

The council will say its issued by the court, meaning the bulk complaint list will be signed by someone authorised by the Justices' Clerk.

 

What is not lawful is profiting from recovery through the Magistrates' Court.

 

i am reading regarding this issue i believe its your post widley covered on this topic on one of the other legal forums website correct me if i am wrong

[outlawla]

i am reading regarding this issue i believe its your post widley covered on this topic on one of the other legal forums website correct me if i am wrong

 

 

Not admitting to anything but will disclose that this local authority (see link)" is offering to justify the near £million each year it adds to resident's council tax liabilities. However, I'm sure the accounts (when released) will reveal that the cost of general council tax administration will be included to fake higher expenditure.

 

As a private company now audits the authority's accounts and whose future contract relies on favourable decisions, I'm sure the auditor will approve whatever figures the council comes up with.

 

 

Mr outlawla,

 

Further to your latest e-mail request of 5 November for an update report and your previous e-mails relating to North East Lincolnshire Council we have set out our position below.

 

Following our initial review regarding council tax summons costs, we have exchanged correspondence with the Council on several occasions regarding its approach. We understand that the Council is intending to publish information shortly on its website to show its calculations of the summon costs for 2012/13. (We cannot be more precise on timing as that is a matter for the Council.) The Council will show the total costs of council tax collection and what elements have been excluded to arrive at recovery costs which may then be recoverable through summons costs. The figures have not been subject to audit as it is not within our audit responsibilities. Ultimately it is a matter for the courts to determine which costs are allowable.

 

This should be followed by the publication of the Council’s forecasts for 2013/14 although we have not seen any specific figures in relation to the latter.

 

Publication of such calculations is consistent with an increased open and transparent approach which we have encouraged the Council to adopt, through discussions with the Corporate Management Team and the Audit & Governance Committee, in accordance with its own values.

 

Regarding the other matters upon which you have sent correspondence, you copied us into correspondence regarding bailiffs fees which you have sent to the Humberside Police Economic Crime Unit. This is the appropriate agency to deal with fraud which is your primary allegation. We do not see any other matters which would fall within our responsibilities. You also raised the matter of business rates summons being charged at £70 rather than the Council requesting actual costs at court. Again we would see this as a matter for the Court to determine. We presume you have asked the Council directly on this matter, although we do not recollect any of your correspondence specifically confirming that this was done.

 

In case we have not previously done so, we enclose a copy of the Audit Commission’s updated leaflet on your rights as a local government elector.

 

 

Just out of interest, the above was the EVENTUAL response after it was necessary to send this:

"

Dear Mr Engagement lead at KPMG

 

I am contacting you today in the hope that previous unsuccessful attempts have been as a consequence of your overlooking the matter.

 

If you don't respond, I will be taking my concerns to the audit commission about your apparent failure to address the matters I've brought to your attention. To avoid the inconvenience of this I would appreciate if you would either update me with your progress, or inform me, as is more likely the case, that you will not be and have never intended to address the issues I've raised.

 

I will take no response as your having no regard for the expense involved, both to myself and more generally the taxpayer of having to take my concerns further.

 

Your sincerely

 

Edited November 16, 2013 by outlawla

[lookinforinfo]

I would have thought that they could produce the summons costs for 2012-2013.

[outlawla]

I would have thought that they could produce the summons costs for 2012-2013.

 

You have hit the nail on the head.

 

How was it possible for the Magistrates to be satisfied that the costs were as the council claimed when they are now only going through the process of justifying them?

[Tariq2009]

email response for SAR funny enough i paid £10 to get a reply in email how classic is that

 

Dear Mr ******

 

Thank you for your request for further information (actually a data access request) regarding your council tax debt for 2012/13, which has been passed to me to reply to as the manager responsible for all local taxation matters.

 

I will answer in the order that you pose your questions:

 

1. The information passed to Newlyn Plc, the council's appointed bailiffs, was the details of the liability ordered granted by Huntingdon Magistrates on 24 July 2012 i.e. your name, address and amount of the order including summons costs of £70.

 

2. There were no checks made on you by the bailiff company, as we had provided the necessary information by passing the liability order information (see 1 above)

 

3. As you acknowledge the Local Government Ombudsman independently investigated and verified that the council's enforcement action was correct in law. As you had paid the original debt including £70 summons costs direct to the council and refused to co-operate with the bailiff company, the business decision was ultimately taken not to pursue the statutory enforcement fees further.

 

4. The £70 summons costs are approved by the magistrates forming part of the debt covered by the liability order (but in law are payable upon the issue of the summons itself) and is payable by the debtor to the billing authority (Huntingdonshire District Council in this case) to ensure the cost of the enforcement action does not fall on the taxpayers who pay as legally required.

 

Yours sincerely

 

********

Local Taxation Manager

[outlawla]

.....I went yesterday and paid them £10 for SAR let see if they are going to provide me with documents of all the communication that happen between newlyn and council or they going to hold back any information

 

If that email was all they sent I'd ask for some change.

[Tariq2009]

If that email was all they sent I'd ask for some change.

 

my response to the council

 

Dear **** ,

I appreciate your effort for replying to my request but honestly this is not what i was hoping for i already know this information. I paid £10 for SAR and you failed to supply me one and also asked what checked did Newlyn do on me as acting on your behalf and you failing to provide me that so kindly please try to send me SAR of any data hold on me which includes all correspondence between you and newlyn on my behalf incase if you are not familiar what SAR is i am providing a link which will help you to understand what SAR is and by all mean do pass it to your staff to learn about SAR .

 

http://www.ico.org.uk/for_organisations/data_protection/~/media/documents/library/Data_Protection/Detailed_specialist_guides/subject-access-code-of-practice.PDF

 

Kind Regards

[outlawla]

http://www.ico.org.uk/for_organisations/data_protection/~/media/documents/library/Data_Protection/Detailed_specialist_guides/subject-access-code-of-practice.PDF

 

They're a bit cheeky charging you £10. Your link says that's a maximum fee.

 

Taking page 51 as a guide you ought to have got up to 20 pages for £1.

[outlawla]

....As you acknowledge the Local Government Ombudsman independently investigated and verified that the council's enforcement action was correct in law. As you had paid the original debt including £70 summons costs direct to the council and refused to co-operate with the bailiff company, the business decision was ultimately taken not to pursue the statutory enforcement fees further...

 

Did you see the Information Commissioner's "Decision Notice" in relation to a complaint regarding Huntingdonshire District Council's handling of bailiff complaints?

 

Reference: FS50497000