• Welcome to the LegalBeagles Consumer and Legal Forum.
    Please Register to get the most out of the forum. Registration is free and only needs a username and email address.
    REGISTER
    Please do not post your full name, reference numbers or any identifiable details on the forum.

Misallocating payments and ignoring email to exploit Magistrates court costs

Collapse
Loading...
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Re: Misallocating payments and ignoring email to exploit Magistrates court costs

    The Local Government Ombudsman chooses to remain complicit:

    From: outlawlgo
    To: A.Hobley@coinweb.lgo.org.uk
    Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2016
    Subject: Re: Confidential: Case ID - 15016673

    Dear Mr Hobley

    I would like to know whether the Ombudsman raised concerns via North East Lincolnshire Council’s legal department regarding fraud. As I stated in my 16 May email the Ombudsman was in possession of enough evidence within the content of the complaint to have had legitimate cause to.

    Yours sincerely

    From: A.Hobley@coinweb.lgo.org.uk
    To: outlawlgo
    Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2016
    Subject: Confidential: Case ID - 15020295


    19 May 2016

    Our ref: 15 020 295
    (Please quote our reference when contacting us)

    Dear Mr outlawlgo,

    You have the decision statement on your case. As we did not investigate we have not..told the Council's legal Department about any alleged fraud.

    As a publicly funded body we cannot justify continuing to correspondence about complaints we have decided. You have been told how to ask for a review of the decision on your case. If you do that we will respond to you. We will also reply to any legal action or DPA/FOI requests. Other than that any further correspondence from you about this complaint will be read, but not acknowledged or replied to.

    Yours sincerely

    Andrew Hobley
    Assessment Team Leader
    0330 403 4725
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT OMBUDSMAN

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: Misallocating payments and ignoring email to exploit Magistrates court costs

      Originally posted by outlawlgo View Post
      The Local Government Ombudsman chooses to remain complicit:


      It has taken me quite some time, but I have now almost finished reading the vast amount of documentation (including your FOI requests) regarding your various allegations of 'perjury, corruption, perverting the course of justice etc etc. Hopefully, I should finish reading the last few documents over the weekend and I will be in a position to post back.

      In the meantime, it is becoming abundantly clear from what I have read so far, that your allegations are nothing more than figments of your imagination.

      The truth of the matter, is that you have very long standing (since at least 2010) personal grudges against various government agencies with North East Lincs Council being just one of them.

      The bottom line is that you are using this forum (and others) for no other purpose than to seek revenge.
      Last edited by Milo; 29th May 2016, 11:35:AM.

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: Misallocating payments and ignoring email to exploit Magistrates court costs

        Milo,

        My understanding is that outlawgo has been abused, and has sought redress by every legal avenue reasonably available to the common person. And not found it. This does not make it a ‘personal grudge’ against ‘various government agencies’, it makes it a person who has done his/her research and gone completely by the book in every instance, and is still thwarted, by various government agencies. They are not alone, except in being diligent to record the entire journey online, which is valuable. The original issue was over a disputed £60, for very good reason and a matter of public interest. They were right to dispute it, I wish more would.


        I’m sorry you find it tiresome that it was all done with such extensive diligence, but I for one am grateful, if somewhat depressed at the reality exposed. How are you so certain that there are “approx 20 different aliases”? Why do you care so much even if there are?


        I have read much of what outlawgo (as that alias) has put online, and am up to speed that his/her case has not been withdrawn, and the reasons that it has not yet been listed for a hearing lie with the court not responding to state a case (the cause of the (withdrawn) judicial review), and then being mistruthful that it had been, by post, but couldn’t get the address quite right.


        This is a person that (as far as I know) is not legally trained, has no profit agenda, but has chosen to apply themselves to serious issues that affect us all, as simple subjects. I call for respect. In bucketloads. Why don’t you have it? What is your agenda?

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: Misallocating payments and ignoring email to exploit Magistrates court costs

          From: [outlawlgo]
          To: Maione, Tony
          Cc: [various]
          Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2016
          Subject: Re: False statement to defraud through council tax liability application

          Dear Mr Maione

          Further to your 18 May email I am trying to establish the council's position in relation to the chart setting out how concerns can be raised (Appendix two, whistleblowing policy). I would therefore like it confirming whether or not your correspondence is effectively the final decision after checks have been made to determine 'if concern falls within the Whistleblowing policy'.

          My interpretation of your comments is that you have made the final decision and that decision is no, the consequences being that the matter will be kept from the scrutiny of the police, Local Government Ombudsman and/or the external auditor for example. Rather, the matter will be confined within the council thus enabling a cover-up by one of its bogus internal procedures allowing the department unhindered to pursue the kind of criminal activity that I have been a victim of.

          If how I have described above is the correct interpretation, I am in no doubt that the statutory function, which you as Monitoring Officer (a public office holder) have a duty to carry out, is not being fulfilled in the way defined in law.

          The role entails specifically ensuring that the Council, its Officers, etc., maintain the highest standards of conduct and reporting on matters that are, or are likely to be, illegal or amount to maladministration.

          Unsubstantiated allegations

          I assume by emphasising the seriousness of the matter if my allegations were found to be unsubstantiated etc., you are implying a threat. If you have considered the evidence, which I assume you have, you will know that the scenario suggested makes no sense as my evidence supports the allegations beyond all doubt.

          Rather than implying that my allegation may be false or malicious the focus ought to be on the council's failure to appoint an officer who is prepared to perform the statutory duties which are conferred on a monitoring officer by virtue of Part III of the Local Government Act 2000.

          Failure of Complaints officers to refer matters concerning fraud

          There is a serious failure of complaints officers adhering to the Whistleblowing policy in not referring matters immediately concerning fraud to the Audit, Risk, Insurance and Corporate Fraud team. This has been evident in the present case which because of the failure has led to an inordinate amount of injustice. For example, intervention would have rendered the completion of the Corporate Feedback procedure unnecessary, plus saved unnecessarily engaging in lengthy representations to the Local Government Ombudsman.

          This matter should have been referred to the Corporate Fraud team in November 2015 further to my correspondence on the 10th alleging that the council fraudulently obtained a liability order from the court in order to enforce a sum which, if it had conducted its affairs lawfully would not be entitled. The same can be said for an earlier submission dated 15 March 2014 concerning a related issue that also led to an inordinate amount of injustice.

          In both cases the Chief Executive endorsed the investigating officer's reports, declaring that he had considered the findings of the investigations to have been correctly and fairly carried out and for such acquiescence he should be held accountable.

          The council's position

          I would like, as set out at the beginning of this email, the council's position clarifying in this matter, e.g., has the council no intention of taking the matter seriously and internally processing it, or has it, or will it be taking the appropriate steps and referring it to the police?

          Yours sincerely

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: Misallocating payments and ignoring email to exploit Magistrates court costs

            HM Courts
            & Tribunals
            Service

            Our ref: GT
            20 May 2016


            Dear Mr [outlawlgo],

            I write in response to your latest two emails to me, the first sent on 9 May 2016 and the second on 16 May 2016.

            With regard to your first email I have already informed you that the court is not prepared to reopen your criminal case. That is because you deliberately chose not to attend your trial.

            Frankly I can only describe your comments in respect of dedicated and hard working professionals within Her Majesty’s Courts’ Service as outrageous.

            With regard to your second email, that relates simply to an issue of non payment of council tax. Should that matter result ultimately in a court hearing you will be given the opportunity to attend court for an inquiry into your financial circumstances. At such a hearing the court will deal with that issue and that issue alone.

            I am unable to help you any further.

            Yours sincerely,

            Graeme Townell
            Legal Team Manager
            Grimsby Magistrates’ Court

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: Misallocating payments and ignoring email to exploit Magistrates court costs

              Originally posted by outlawlgo View Post
              HM Courts
              & Tribunals
              Service

              Our ref: GT
              20 May 2016


              Dear Mr [outlawlgo],

              I write in response to your latest two emails to me, the first sent on 9 May 2016 and the second on 16 May 2016.

              With regard to your first email I have already informed you that the court is not prepared to reopen your criminal case. That is because you deliberately chose not to attend your trial.

              Frankly I can only describe your comments in respect of dedicated and hard working professionals within Her Majesty’s Courts’ Service as outrageous

              Outlawlgo,

              Given the astonshing amount of documentation that you have published on the internet regarding your arrest, I am very surprised indeed to read that you did not even bother to attend your trial.

              On the WhatdoTheyKnow website you made the following comment a few months ago:

              "The arresting officer had no good cause to suspect that the charges originally brought were warranted and the subsequent arrest and imprisonment was unlawful for which Humberside Police should be held to account"

              You couln't be bothered to attend your trial and yet, since that time, you have been conducting what can only be described as a 'witch hunt' against the Judge who convicted you (Deputy District Judge Andrew Pascoe) and various police officers involved in your arrest last summer.

              What on earth are you playing at?
              Last edited by Milo; 29th May 2016, 11:34:AM.

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: Misallocating payments and ignoring email to exploit Magistrates court costs

                Originally posted by Milo View Post
                ....you have been conducting what can only be described as a 'witch hunt' against the Judge who convicted you (Deputy District Judge Andrew Pascoe)
                Is there something you're hinting at but would rather someone else posted?

                £52,000 bill for deputy district judge who breached rules 20 times.
                I'll do it this time but in future fire the gun yourself.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: Misallocating payments and ignoring email to exploit Magistrates court costs

                  Originally posted by outlawlgo View Post
                  Is there something you're hinting at but would rather someone else posted?

                  I'll do it this time but in future fire the gun yourself.
                  No, I'm quite happy to do my own posting thank you.

                  With regards to your comment about 'firing the gun myself'.... I have no idea what you are talking about.

                  Last summer, I read your posts concerning your arrest and in the lead up to you trial in November, I followed the large number of internet posts and Freedom of Information requests that you made to various agencies (Humberside Police, the Crown Prosecution Service, HMCTS to name but a few).

                  All FOI requests had a common theme. You were blaming others....either for wrongful arrest or even fabricating evidence. It was therefore of huge interest to discover yesterday that you deliberately did not even bother to attend your trial.

                  I would be interesting to know the reason why.
                  Last edited by Milo; 29th May 2016, 09:45:AM.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: Misallocating payments and ignoring email to exploit Magistrates court costs

                    From: Maione, Tony
                    To: [outlawlgo]
                    Cc: [various]
                    Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2016
                    Subject: RE: False statement to defraud through council tax liability application

                    Dear Mr [outlawlgo],

                    Thank you for your email below.

                    I can confirm that the Council’s Internal Audit team, led by Mr Hanmer, will be looking into the matters you have raised as laid out in earlier correspondence.

                    If you believe that the Courts, the police, the Local Government Ombudsman, District Audit or any combination of those, and/or any other external scrutiny should be brought to bear it is of course within your right to pursue that.

                    Kind regards

                    Tony

                    Tony Maione, Solicitor
                    Chief Legal Officer and Monitoring Officer
                    North East Lincolnshire Council

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: Misallocating payments and ignoring email to exploit Magistrates court costs

                      In for a penny...


                      Crime report to Humberside Police

                      26 May 2016

                      North East Lincolnshire Council has appointed Rossendale’s bailiffs to enforce alleged outstanding Council Tax. I have become aware about this after receiving a letter dated 11 May 2016 from the enforcement firm.

                      There is no money owed. The council engineered the debt and did so criminally by lying to the court. This matter is known to Humberside police and although the force has decided against investigating the matter it may now that there are further consequences need to review its decision. Incidentally, evidence which proves the allegations beyond all reasonable doubt has been provided to the force. In assistance I will provide you with the relevant reference which is CO 461/15.

                      Rossendale’s letter refers to a schedule of fees which had not been enclosed, perhaps due to an oversight or because the generic letter had not been updated and contained information that was once necessary but not now. In any event, I believe those fees are likely to amount to £310, comprising a £75 compliance fee and £235 enforcement charge which when added to the unwarranted summons costs will amount to £430. It is therefore reasonable to assume that at this stage the sum that the council will attempt to defraud me of will be £430.

                      In reference to CO 461/15, my prediction had the makings of being accurate. See quoted paragraphs of my 30 December 2015 email to Inspector Allan Harvey in this matter:

                      "Action needs taking sooner rather than later to ensure that the immediate consequences of the fraud is remedied. This will not be achieved by having to complete complaint and subsequent appeal procedures which guarantee nothing at the end. The appropriate level of investigation can be evaluated after the immediate risk of the consequences of the crimes have been removed.

                      The consequences do not stop at the fraudulently obtained court cost. Unnecessary enforcement measures will follow, incurring additional costs which will accumulate over time to be sufficient in amount that the council will achieve its vindictive aim and be able to take insolvency, bankruptcy or custodial action."

                      NELC's Revenues & Benefits service has not as you would have expected considered it a close shave to have avoided being the subject of a fraud investigation, but emboldened it to take further liberties with the law and seen it as a green light to continue its vendetta.

                      As I’m sure the force knows where this is heading, I expect now would be an appropriate time to have this matter investigated.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: Misallocating payments and ignoring email to exploit Magistrates court costs

                        Originally posted by Milo View Post
                        No, I'm quite happy to do my own posting thank you.

                        With regards to your comment about 'firing the gun myself'.... I have no idea what you are talking about.

                        Last summer, I read your posts concerning your arrest and in the lead up to you trial in November, I followed the large number of internet posts and Freedom of Information requests that you made to various agencies (Humberside Police, the Crown Prosecution Service, HMCTS to name but a few).

                        All FOI requests had a common theme. You were blaming others....either for wrongful arrest or even fabricating evidence. It was therefore of huge interest to discover yesterday that you deliberately did not even bother to attend your trial.

                        I would be interesting to know the reason why.
                        Outlawlgo

                        I know that your days are taken up with issuing more and more Freedom of Information requests, but it would have been nice to have had a response to this important question.

                        After all, your previous court appearance did not go very well at all with the Judge stating that he had "listened for half-an-hour to a political diatribe, only 5 minutes of which made sense".

                        Following that hearing, you publicly stated that the judge was an 'unashamed fraud' and as:

                        ' corrupt as all the other parasites to which the government pay taxpayers money for the purposes of oppressing".

                        You are currently attempting to start another legal action; this time a Judicial Review. If granted, will you attend that hearing?

                        What will happen if you lose (which is likely)? Will you once again accuse those Judges of being 'unashamed frauds' or of being 'corrupt'?
                        Last edited by Milo; 29th May 2016, 09:44:AM.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Re: Misallocating payments and ignoring email to exploit Magistrates court costs

                          Originally posted by outlawlgo View Post

                          As I’m sure the force knows where this is heading.
                          I know where it's heading as well !!

                          It's taken you over eight years and you have managed to engineer a position where you can start all over again.

                          This is a link to your first post on here from 2010. The username that you picked to join the forum with demonstrated clearly that you had a pre-existing ‘grudge’ with the Local Government Ombudsman.

                          http://legalbeagles.info/forums/show...ht=#post155804

                          As you will see from this post, you had complained about fees charged by Rossendales bailiffs and the fact that a ‘levy’ had been put on a vehicle that was not owned by you.

                          For the best part of 4 years, you made hundreds of FOI requests regarding your complain. But what was very odd indeed, was that you did so in the full knowledge that Rossendales had returned your account back to North East Lincs Council and the bailiff fees and ‘levy’ were therefore of no consequence to you whatsoever!! Not that the fees were of any consequence anyway given that in 2010 you stated the following:

                          I better mention that the fees are not an issue here as such, because I refused to pay or have any contact whatsoever with Rossendales

                          On quite a few occasions I advised you that the correct course of action if you wished to challenge bailiff fees, was to make an application to the county court for a Detailed Assessment. It is obvious why you chose to pursue a different route.

                          Last edited by Milo; 29th May 2016, 09:42:AM.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Re: Misallocating payments and ignoring email to exploit Magistrates court costs

                            Milo, you make comment on how long Outlaw has spent pursuing this case yet you cannot see your own unhealthy interest in following him all over the web making comments about his posts.

                            You call his case a 'grudge' against various authorities, but what would your response be if the council allocated a payment you made in respect of the current year's council tax against disputed arrears from several years ago - the effect of this allocation meaning the current year falls into arrears, leading to a LO and further costs?

                            You ignore the conduct of the Magistrate which led to him having to repay tens of thousands of pounds - of course, the closed shop did not consider this fraud but 'inefficiency'. the fact it happened 20 times seems lost on them, but seeing as you have a history of your own 'inefficiencies' perhaps you relate better than the rest of us plebs.

                            Outlaw is pursing a case that has unnecessarily and perhaps illegally engineered extra costs, yet you belittle and bemoan him. I assume you therefore have the same opinion of the Rev Nicholson in his long-standing battle against unjust costs.

                            If you don't like what Outlaw is doing then ignore it instead of tracking him across cyberspace sticking your oar in.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Re: Misallocating payments and ignoring email to exploit Magistrates court costs

                              Another threat, but this time they've added £75.00 where as the previous one was merely a threat.

                              Notice of enforcement – Rossendales
                              This notice must be given by the enforcement agent or the enforcement agent's office___________

                              Please read this notice - it is important

                              Date notice issued 25th May 2016

                              About this notice You have been sent this notice of enforcement because you have not paid money that you owe.

                              Who you owe money to North East Lincolnshire Council

                              The amount you owe them £ 211.00
                              Enforcement details Details of the court judgement or order or enforcement power by virtue of which the debt is enforceable

                              A Liability Order has been granted against you on the 30/10/2015 for non payment of Council Tax and costs at XY Xxxx Yyyy, Grimsby, DNXY XXY:
                              Sum outstanding Debt £ 211.00

                              Interest £0.00

                              Compliance stage fee £75.00

                              TOTAL sum
                              outstanding £286.00

                              (as at the date of this notice)
                              When to make
                              payment
                              You must pay, or agree a payment arrangement with the enforcement agent, by:

                              Date 18th June 2016

                              Time 23:59
                              If you do not pay

                              If you do not pay or agree a payment arrangement by the date above, an enforcement agent will visit you and may seize your belongings - this is called 'taking control'. These belongings may then be sold to pay the money you owe. These actions will increase the costs of enforcement and these costs will be added to the amount already owed.

                              Possible additional fees and expenses of enforcement

                              If the sum outstanding remains unpaid or you have not agreed a payment arrangement by the date and time above you may be charged the following (enforcement agent to detail further possible fees and expenses)

                              Fee schedule..... see link

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Re: Misallocating payments and ignoring email to exploit Magistrates court costs

                                Originally posted by Big Al View Post
                                Milo, you make comment on how long Outlaw has spent pursuing this case yet you cannot see your own unhealthy interest in following him all over the web making comments about his posts.

                                Outlaw is pursing a case that has unnecessarily and perhaps illegally engineered extra costs, yet you belittle and bemoan him. I assume you therefore have the same opinion of the Rev Nicholson in his long-standing battle against unjust costs.

                                If you don't like what Outlaw is doing then ignore it instead of tracking him across cyberspace sticking your oar in.
                                I will try to answer your above points.

                                Firstly, there is no 'unhealthy interest' at all in reading Outlawlgo's posts on here or his many Freedom of Information requests on the 'WhatdoTheyKnow' website.

                                Outlawla is not pursuing a case about possible illegal fees at all. He has no need to.

                                The subject of 'summons costs' etc has already been subject to a very high profile court case initiated by the Reverend Nicholson. He lost his case. He appealed and that case was also lost and sadly, he has been ordered to pay over £50,000 in costs.

                                I know the Reverend well, and I fully supported his legal argument and indeed, provided him with a significant amount of documentation. Unlike Outlaw, the Reverend did not pursue his case for his own personal benefit. He pursued the case on behalf of all the low income families and single parents etc from his local authority area.

                                In order to bring the Reverend's attention to the media, I started a thread on the CAG forum that brought many thousands of viewers. In the initial stages, Outlaw was an excellent contributor providing details of summons costs from other local authorities. He would also ensure that any news reports and updates from the Reverend's website were posted on the forum. With the wealth of documentary evidence that he had accumulated from approx half of all local authorities, it was generally considered that he had shared this important information with the Reverend or his legal team. He had not bothered to do so. This was only known after he lost his appeal.

                                PS: I have not as yet addressed your point about the way in which the council allocated his payments. I will do so later today.
                                Last edited by Milo; 29th May 2016, 09:47:AM.

                                Comment

                                View our Terms and Conditions

                                LegalBeagles Group uses cookies to enhance your browsing experience and to create a secure and effective website. By using this website, you are consenting to such use.To find out more and learn how to manage cookies please read our Cookie and Privacy Policy.

                                If you would like to opt in, or out, of receiving news and marketing from LegalBeagles Group Ltd you can amend your settings at any time here.


                                If you would like to cancel your registration please Contact Us. We will delete your user details on request, however, any previously posted user content will remain on the site with your username removed and 'Guest' inserted.
                                Working...
                                X