Have you seen this one?

[ploddertom]

The following link cropped up in another thread in the Local Authority Forum but think it important enough to show it here also.

 

http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/business/sheffield-council-tax-blunder-causes-misery-1-5377303

[brassnecked]

"

“Capita, the company which manages Sheffield Council’s financial services, issued 5,000 court summonses in January. Somewhere there has obviously been a breakdown in the agreed processes of administrating some council tax receipts.

“I have asked officers and Capita to investigate as a matter of urgency, and report back to me by Tuesday.”" Quoted from the article.

 

 

Capita again, why am I not surprised?

[dx100uk]

urm...

 

and it looks like they photocopied and falsified OFFICIAL COURT FORMS too!

 

little dicky bird tells me heads will roll on this.

 

dx

[brassnecked]

urm...

 

and it looks like they photocopied and falsified OFFICIAL COURT FORMS too!

 

little dicky bird tells me heads will roll on this.

 

dx

 

They will try to squirm out of it, but hopefully plod may take an interest

[Conniff]

“Capita, the company which manages Sheffield Council’s financial services, issued 5,000 court summonses in January. Somewhere there has obviously been a breakdown in the agreed processes of administrating some council tax receipts.

 

Nah, somewhere someone realised that the more summonses issued the more they get paid more like.

[brassnecked]

Nah, somewhere someone realised that the more summonses issued the more they get paid more like.

Well the markup in court and other costs is akin to Wonga.com, so they would try it. Otherwise they firked up like they did with the immigration list, probably confused the list of illegals with the TV licensing database which they, Crapita, also administer,

[Fulhamboy]

Well its not often I' m gob smacked but this farce takes the biscuit. Where do I start ? So there is no

one overseeing Crapita in the council, they are left to their own devices to terrorize the c/t payers ,frack me ! The council will now surely tear up their contract with Crapita . This will take some serious spinning, I hope the judiciary get involved as you cannot rely on the old bill as far as they are concerned its a civil matter

[brassnecked]

Well its not often I' m gob smacked but this farce takes the biscuit. Where do I start ? So there is no

one overseeing Crapita in the council, they are left to their own devices to terrorize the c/t payers ,frack me ! The council will now surely tear up their contract with Crapita . This will take some serious spinning, I hope the judiciary get involved as you cannot rely on the old bill as far as they are concerned its a civil matter

The council will believe coal is pearly white if Crapita tells them it is so. they will also stonewall, and accept Crapita and Equits's (if they are also in the frame) dodgy version of the truth without question.

[cerberus]

Hey all,

 

Re: falsification of court documents... Does anyone remember in Annette's case (nfdc council, bailiff seige for 6 hours, very vulnerable), it seemed as if the liability orders may have been falsified/forged - - I'm wondering if this is a widespread action by capita/councils, and this was why they were threatening her? To conceal this widespread action?

 

All of this is hypothesis, and guessing, and I'm just a conspiracy nut (incase this post crosses legal boundaries)

 

Cerberus

Edited February 9, 2013 by cerberus
Grammar

[brassnecked]

Hey all,

 

Re: falsification of court documents... Does anyone remember in Annette's case (nfdc council, bailiff seige for 6 hours, very vulnerable), it seemed as if the liability orders may have been falsified/forged - - I'm wondering if this is a widespread action by capita/councils, and this was why they were threatening her? To conceal this widespread action?

 

All of this is hypothesis, and guessing, and I'm just a conspiracy nut (incase this post crosses legal boundaries)

 

Cerberus

No it's not a conspiracy, it has become accepted common practice, where they consider as it is debt to an arm of government, the end justifies the means. the fact that they are themselves then criminals doesn't even cross their minds or enter their moral compass, that is if they even have one. In Annette's case they wanted their pound of flesh even though they would drive a 44 tonne truck though the National Standards regarding vulnerable situations, and commit various offences that carry serious jailtime, including fraud, criminal damage perjury, and conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. They seem to think that as it was unpaid business rates it is OK to terrorise a vulnerable family who do not have the ability to pay the sums demanded on the day.

Edited February 9, 2013 by brassnecked

[caledfwlch]

Reading the comments on the article, is "Fraggle69" one of us? I love that his/her quick eye has spotted that the Photo of victim, Altine Bootha-King has even got her holding a faked court document.

[brassnecked]

Reading the comments on the article, is "Fraggle69" one of us? I love that his/her quick eye has spotted that the Photo of victim, Altine Bootha-King has even got her holding a faked court document.

Fraggle69 is most likely on our message, the whole setup in Sheffield now needs investigation.

[cerberus]

Fraggle69 is most likely on our message, the whole setup in Sheffield now needs investigation.

 

The whole set-up nationwide needs investigating!

[brassnecked]

The whole set-up nationwide needs investigating!

 

Yes it does, but start with Sheffield, Birmingham, and Coventry. As Capita also supply Housing Management software and systems to councils and Housing Providers, who don't outsource office work to them; I wonder if they did a Microsoft, and put a back door in the software that phones home?

[Fulhamboy]

In the article a solicitor was on the receiving end of one of these letters, pretty sure he wont let it go.

Plenty of money to be made in a joint action. It is one giant ponzi scheme where those who have in the past have coughed up pay for the next wave of summonses. So could the experts on the site put a figure on how much money can be made on one liability order. If a liability order is issued for eg £10 add the court costs and then the bailiff fees before you know it you could owe £100s.On several posts

phantom visits are mentioned, where letters are not delivered or pushed through the door. The bailiffs

dont want you to answer , they just want the fees to build and build till you crack and pay their

over inflated bill

[brassnecked]

In the article a solicitor was on the receiving end of one of these letters, pretty sure he wont let it go.

Plenty of money to be made in a joint action. It is one giant ponzi scheme where those who have in the past have coughed up pay for the next wave of summonses. So could the experts on the site put a figure on how much money can be made on one liability order. If a liability order is issued for eg £10 add the court costs and then the bailiff fees before you know it you could owe £100s.On several posts

phantom visits are mentioned, where letters are not delivered or pushed through the door. The bailiffs

dont want you to answer , they just want the fees to build and build till you crack and pay their

over inflated bill

Quite so, Outlawla has found that NELC has obtained Liability orders for arrears of £1 or less, and then Rossendales have made the debt £ hundreds.

[outlawla]

.......These figures supplied by the council give an idea of the money involved with respect to just one court hearing.

 

• 3,359 Summonses sent out for court hearings (2nd June 2011)
  
• 2,602 Incurred Summons costs of £70
  

Revenue income for these costs:

• North East Lincolnshire Council £174,334
  
• Her Majesty's Court Service £7,806
  

As only 2 of the 3,359 summoned residents actually had court hearings, the half hour's Magistrates' time meant the court was on an hourly rate of £15,612.

 

This court hearing was in respect of around half the number of those in Sheffield.

 

The latest figures show that Sheffield charge a total £74 in court costs for obtaining each liability order. £46 for the summons and £28 added once the LO has been obtained.

[lamma]

The LO "hearings" are for huge numbers of defendants - hundreds. Very few of whom. if any, show up. I believe that the councils do not pay a fee per defendant merely a single fee for the "hearings". If this belief is well founded then I would have to conclude that subsequent charging of a court fee per defendant should the totality of those fees per defendant exceed the amount paid to the court for the"hearing" could be considered to be fraud. I presume that nearly all of us know that the Court actually shares the revenue with the council ? Following the money could be informative. There is a window into the council accounts that open up very shortly for any interested in inspecting the accounts, see Audit Commission Act 1998 S14-S.18. Furthermore it is my belief that the court issues the LOs under contract with the council this rendering any "hearing" to be a complete misnomer to say the least. The whole area of council tax recovery disgusts me.

[brassnecked]

The LO "hearings" are for huge numbers of defendants - hundreds. Very few of whom. if any, show up. I believe that the councils do not pay a fee per defendant merely a single fee for the "hearings". If this belief is well founded then I would have to conclude that subsequent charging of a court fee per defendant should the totality of those fees per defendant exceed the amount paid to the court for the"hearing" could be considered to be fraud. I presume that nearly all of us know that the Court actually shares the revenue with the council ? Following the money could be informative. There is a window into the council accounts that open up very shortly for any interested in inspecting the accounts, see Audit Commission Act 1998 S14-S.18. Furthermore it is my belief that the court issues the LOs under contract with the council this rendering any "hearing" to be a complete misnomer to say the least. The whole area of council tax recovery disgusts me.

It is not really a kosher legal process, as the council effectively hires the court as a mainly rubber stamping exercise, with anyone turning up actively prevented from seeing the magistrates if at all possible. It is a quasi-legal kangaroo court at best.

[outlawla]

The Magistrates’ Courts Fees (Amendment No. 2) Order 2010

 

 

4 Liability Orders

 

4.1 Proceedings under the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 or the Non-Domestic Rating (Collection and Enforcement) (Local Lists) Regulations 1989 on an application for a liability order.

 

£3

 

Note: Fee 4.1 is payable in respect of each defendant against whom the liability order is sought.

[brassnecked]

The Magistrates’ Courts Fees (Amendment No. 2) Order 2010

It is now used as an alternative revenue stream, along with parking charges and penalties.

[Conniff]

It is now used as an alternative revenue stream, along with parking charges and penalties.

 

It 'is' an alternative revenue stream. I can just imagine the excitement when opening the days mail and there is no cheque from someone who is 14 days late, I bet a huge cheer goes up 'yea, got another one, if this keeps up we should get a decent payrise this year'.

 

The court costs collected, just in England alone, total hundred of £millions per year.

Edited February 10, 2013 by Conniff

[brassnecked]

It 'is' an alternative revenue stream. I can just imagine the excitement when opening the days mail and there is no cheque from someone who is 14 days late, I bet a huge cheer goes up 'yea, got another one, if this keeps up we should get a decent payrise this year'.

 

The court costs collected, just in England alone, total hundred of £millions per year.

Disgusting isn't it, they are supposed to serve us, not rip us off at every turn

[outlawla]

You may have seen this. It's been posted on various forums.

 

JUSTICES' CLERKS' SOCIETY

 

Procedure in Liability Order Applications

 

Date: April 2011

 

1. Background

 

Council has been contacted by Peter Downton of HMCS Enforcement Team concerning the way HMCS records the making of liability orders in Council Tax cases due to challenges to the process in various quarters, including MPs.

 

The concerns raised are:

 

a) that the procedure is not transparent;

 

b) HMCS can not demonstrate that it is accurately recording the orders made

 

c) whether the orders are in correct form since they are not wet-ink signed.

 

Council has considered the issues, and in light of the procedures operating in their courts is of the view that the following process is lawful and transparent.

 

The key objective of any procedure is that an accurate record is made of every decision of the court and retained. It is not possible for each individual complaint to be case entered, recorded, and resulted, (save by a massive expansion in the number of legal advisers and court assistants). However the objective is achieved within existing resources by recording results against the council's printout and retaining that as an annexe to the register.

 

2. Procedure: Issuing summons

 

1. The council delivers one or two complaint lists to the court with their fee (or an undertaking to pay it later)

 

2. The list is reviewed by a legal adviser with delegated powers who issues the summonses

 

3. Either one copy of the list is returned endorsed to the council and the court retains the other endorsed list, or the court retains a single endorsed list and the council is informed of the outcome (in reality it is extremely unlikely that any summons will not be issued so this does not need to be a detailed notification). The council then print the summonses, pre-printed with the Justices' Clerk's signature, and post them out.

 

3. Procedure: Liability Order Application

 

1. The legal adviser is given an up to date printout of the Council's applications by a Council representative. This will set out the name and details of each defendant and against that the order the Council wishes the court to make.

 

2. The court hears a bulk application for all non-attenders: the Council representative proves the technical requirements and gives evidence that the sums levied have not been paid.

 

3. Any defendant attending or writing to the court is dealt with individually and orders made (or not made) in their case. Their attendance or otherwise is also recorded.

 

4. The legal adviser records the overall number of liability orders made, withdrawn, dismissed and adjourned. This may be recorded on a file cover or on the copy printout, or both.

 

5. In addition for each case where the court does not make the order set out in the Council's printout, the legal adviser notes the actual order made against the defendant's name in the printout.

 

6. This means that there is a definitive record on the Council's printout of all orders made.

 

7. The numbers of orders granted, withdrawn etc. recorded by the legal adviser, are input after court and appear in the Libra register.

 

8. Any adjourned cases are individually case-entered and resulted (to generate a door list and appearance in the Libra diary).

 

9. The council's printout, marked up by the legal adviser, is kept permanently, as an annex to the register.

 

4. Orders

 

The Council's software generates the liability orders. These may be rubber-stamped or pre-printed with the Justices' Clerks signature. There is no requirement for a wet-ink signature.

 

This is for two reasons, set out in the Magistrates' Courts Rules 1981. Firstly, the Rules only require signatures (of any sort) on forms prescribed by the Rules (Rule 109(1)) and a liability order is not prescribed. Even if it were, rule 109(3) states "where a signature is required on a form or warrant other than an arrest, remand or commitment warrant, an electronic signature on the form will suffice.

 

5. Procedures prior to the hearing

 

The Court and its staff should not give the impression that the Council is in charge of the process.

Edited February 10, 2013 by outlawla

[brassnecked]

@ outlawla above, the whole process stinks of kangaroo, and may well be a breach of Article 10 of the European Convention, on Human Rights, right to a fair trial.