• 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

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

    Originally posted by Adamna View Post
    The 'go to' advice is always to seek this magical legal advice. In other words, go to one of our club members to charge you to tell you why the system doesn't work. Or the Ombudsman who will tell you, after much delay, that it's not in 'her remit' either. Regardless, you have no chips in our game. Out of the casino with you.
    I'm convinced there's a formula followed by every public body that deals with complaints which basically involves singling out one or two elements which it can associate with matters out of its remit and addressing none of the concerns that are within jurisdiction. When it's escalated, the person next dealing with it only looks at what the first person highlighted and this goes on and on until the only option is risking your home in the casino justice system.

    Perhaps it will be properly scrutinised by the Parliamentary Ombudsman....the final hope before the threat of judicial review is made.

    Comment


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

      Originally posted by outlawlgo View Post
      Without explanation, a sum has been deducted from the overall amount outstanding on my Council Tax account (not paid by me). The observation that the balance had been reduced by £91 was made on 7 September 2016. The council seems to have oddly credited an amount which I'm not disputing.
      Originally posted by outlawlgo View Post
      Again, without explanation, my account has been meddled with. This time a sum has been added to the overall amount outstanding on my Council Tax account. The council seems to have taken back the £91 it credited last week.

      As North East Lincolnshire Council has admitted to monitoring this thread it must have learned about its error from a previous post.
      @Crazy council could have the answer to this. The council's explanation sounds a bit far fetched.

      ===========
      North East Lincolnshire Council
      Finance Department

      22 October 2016

      Dear Sir/Madam

      Re: Council tax Ref: 550xxxxxxx – Formal Complaint

      I have reason to believe that my council tax account has been interfered with after noticing the overall outstanding balance altering (reducing) without any payment being made by myself.

      It was noticed on 7 September 2016 that the balance had been reduced by £91 indicating that a sum equalling that amount was paid on the account or else the council had manually adjusted the balance by that sum. It was not paid by myself and unlikely any other customer would have, so the most probable explanation would be that the council had for some reason altered it.

      At first I put it down to the court costs which have been in dispute since November 2012 and which are being appealed in the High Court, and/or the amount which the council imposed in costs by way of a fraudulent application to the Magistrates’ court last year. The sum however matched my payments for last year’s council tax instalments which coincidentally has one payment outstanding.

      I was unsure why the council would have credited that amount, if for some reason it had, as it is not in dispute, only being withheld until a time when I can be certain that the payment won’t again be misallocated by the council.

      However, on 19 September the same sum which was deducted was added again without explanation. Coincidentally (or perhaps not) the account was altered on the next working day when details of the anomaly noticed on 7 September had been posted on a public help forum which the council monitors. This is a known fact due to the council carelessly incriminating itself by submitting material it found there in a false statement in a bid to obtain money from me fraudulently through a complaint to the Magistrates’ court.


      I’m hoping this can be explained because meddling with customer’s accounts this way can potentially have adverse effects, knowing that when unspecified payments are made, NELC’s council tax processing system is set wrongly to allocate monies to the oldest account with the consequences of putting the current year’s account in arrears.


      Yours sincerely



      8 November 2016

      Private and Confidential
      Dear [outlawlgo]

      I am writing in response to your stage 1 complaint received on 25 October 2016. As my role of investigating officer it is my responsibility to investigate your complaint and seek to resolve matters.

      I have spoken to relevant personnel and read the supporting documentation as part of the investigation process. I will now attempt to address each of your concerns in turn.

      Complaint 1: Summary of complaint

      "It was noticed on 7 September 2016 that the balance had been reduced by £91 indicating that a sum equalling that amount was paid on the account or else the council had manually adjusted the balance by that sum. It was not paid by myself and unlikely any other customer would have, so the most probable explanation would be that the council had for some reason altered it."

      As part of server work conducted by ICT to relocate our ICT data Centre on the weekend of 3rd /4th September, a Barclays bank file relating back to 30th September 2015 was posted in error onto the Council Tax system. When all the systems were turned back on, processes were run to check that the file transfer procedure was correctly working. The file in question was copied into the live import area of our income management system via a process which runs automatically on a daily basis. This flagged for processing when it should have been deleted as it was only for testing purposes. As a result this was then processed on the live income system on 5th September.

      Outcome:

      I do uphold this part of your complaint. A transaction for £91 was posted onto your account in error as a result of ICT systems work. Please accept my apologies for any confusion this may have caused you.

      Complaint 2: Summary of complaint

      "However, on 19 September the same sum which was deducted"

      Once the erroneous postings were identified, which happened as part of a regular audit process, an income reversal file was produced to bring all the accounts back to their original balances prior to this posting.

      Outcome:

      I do uphold this part of your complaint as the £91 was removed once it was identified as an error, however, I can confirm that this was not for the reasons you have stated.

      As part of our efforts to continually improve services we consider learning from complaints to be an important part of developing our services to the community. Should you feel that your complaint has not been satisfactorily resolved, you can escalate to stage 2 of our complaints process where it will be reviewed by a senior officer. Please contact the complaints team should you wish to take your complaint to the next stage at the address below, by telephone on (01472) 326426 or email res-customerservices@nelincs.gov.uk.

      Yours sincerely

      North East Lincolnshire

      Comment


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

        Originally posted by outlawlgo View Post
        ....... If you do not consider that my reply has dealt with your complaint satisfactorily, you can ask a Member of Parliament to refer your case to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (the Ombudsman). Complaints are investigated at the Ombudsman's discretion. More details can be found on the Ombudsman's website: http://www.ombudsman.org.uk/.

        Yours sincerely


        Richard Redgrave
        Head of Customer Investigations
        Complaint sent to MP on 15 November 2016 for referral to Parliamentary Ombudsman.

        Comment


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

          [MENTION=8136]outlawlgo[/MENTION]

          some big news on this, will try email you the details over the weekend.
          crazy council ( as in local council,NELC ) as a member of the public, i don't get mad, i get even

          Comment


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

            Originally posted by outlawlgo View Post
            A letter raising concerns about the Chief Executive and Monitoring Officers was sent to the Leader of North East Lincolnshire Council on 10 August. ( Misconduct in Public Office 10 Aug 2016 )

            A reply dated 11 August is obviously another fob-off letter..... ( 11 August 2016 Council Leader - Redact )
            The leader of the Council replied on 11 August..... ( 11 August 2016 Council Leader - Redact )

            Our ref: RO/seh/0193

            11 August 2016
            Dear outlawlgo

            I write to acknowledge receipt of your letter dated 10th August 2016 .

            In view of the serious nature of your serious allegations against senior officers of the Council I will be referring the matter to Humberside Police. The Council will consider its position in the light of the police response and any findings arising from the outstanding complaints you have lodged with the Information Commissioner's Office. In the meantime, the Council will not be making any further comment on the matter.

            Yours sincerely

            Ray Oxby
            Leader of North East Lincolnshire Council

            Municipal Offices, Town Hall Square, Grimsby, North East Lincolnshire DN31 1HU
            Telephone (01472) 325905
            Email :
            ray.oxby@nelincs.gov.uk
            Humberside police have dealt with the matter as professionally as ever. Evidently not even bothering to provide anything to support its decision. No more than 10 minutes could have been dedicated to the investigation which was the amount of time it must have taken to draft its billshot letter.

            Humberside Police
            Specialist Command
            Police Headquarters,
            Priory Road,
            Hull, HU5 5SF
            19 November 2016

            Dear [outlawlgo]

            You recently wrote to the North East Lincolnshire Council to make allegations of fraud and perjury against them, and to make an allegation of perverting the course of justice against District Judge Curtis.

            This complaint was passed to Humberside Police to investigate as it contained criminal allegations. In order to ensure independence it was allocated to a team that you have had no previous contact with.

            I write to inform you that we have completed our investigation into the allegations you make. In relation to the allegation of fraud that pertains to your council tax bill, we find no evidence of dishonesty on behalf of the local authority. Further to this, the allegation of perjury you alleged was committed by North East Lincolnshire Council in relation to the use of your payments to offset the debt is also found to be unproven. Your assertion that North East Lincolnshire Council have dishonesty appropriately around £56,000 from residents cannot be supported by the evidence available.

            The fraud you allege that pertains to the additional debt caused by North East Lincolnshire Council using payments you made to pay costs is also not supported by any evidence.

            Finally, the allegation of perverting the course of justice allegedly committed by District Judge Curtis we find is without evidential support.

            As an additional matter we find that the complaint that witnesses involved in the trial against you in relation to the incident on 30th April 2015 gave false evidence is also without basis. You claim that CCTV was hidden but in fact this was categorically not the case.

            I appreciate that you will be disappointed in the findings of our investigation but I can reassure you that this was done completely independently, by an experienced Senior Investigator who has no prior knowledge of any of your previous allegations.

            I have also written to North East Lincolnshire Council to advise them of the outcome.

            Yours sincerely

            Christine Wilson

            Detective Chief Superintendent
            Head of Crime

            Comment


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

              Is it not for the police to investigate? If you have a burglar break in to your home, are you supposed to provide all the fingerprint evidence, check them against files of known reprobates....?

              Comment


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

                The force hasn't investigated anything and are not even professional at telling porkies.

                The complaint alleging Misconduct in Public Office runs to 62 pages and there are over 50 supporting documents referred to in that paper which were never asked for.

                For example, Annex A to C of the judicial complaint (7 November 2015) was omitted but clearly stated "Request complete paper". This provided conclusive evidence to prove the allegations about the council but the police didn't bother asking for it.

                Comment


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

                  From: 'outlawlgo'
                  To: christine.wilson@humberside.pnn.police.uk ; enquiries@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk
                  Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2016
                  Subject: Investigation into misconduct in public office - ref: CW/DEJ

                  Dear Ms Wilson

                  Re: Investigation into misconduct in public office

                  I received a letter dated 19 November 2016 (ref: CW/DEJ) from yourself.

                  Though the matter concerned allegations of misconduct in public office about North East Lincolnshire Council's Chief Executive and Monitoring officers, the response is a series of spurious statements, with nothing supporting them, concerning decisions the force has previously claimed it had no remit to investigate.

                  Notwithstanding that the matters have been misrepresented it is clear that the force hasn't investigated anything.

                  The complaint alleging Misconduct in Public Office runs to 62 pages and many supporting documents were referred to in that paper which were never asked for.

                  If the force seriously intended properly investigating these matters then an effort would have been made to gather all relevant information, but at no time did anyone from Humberside police enquire whether I had anything additional that would assist.

                  I'm informed that the investigation has been carried out completely independently by an experienced Senior Investigator with no prior knowledge of my previous allegations. Unless you mean the Investigator does not serve with Humberside police I would contest the that this has been dealt with independently. Assuming then that the Investigator does serve with Humberside police I would like to know for the record who that person is and would also like to know at what level of seniority within the force this investigation and decisions are known about.

                  Finally I wish my concerns about the failure to properly investigate the allegations escalated to the Chief Constable.

                  Yours sincerely

                  [outlawlgo]

                  Comment


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

                    From: Wilson, Christine 5531
                    To: outlawlgo ; enquiries@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk
                    Cc: Chief Constable
                    Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2016
                    Subject: RE: Investigation into misconduct in public office - ref: CW/DEJ

                    [outlawlgo],

                    Humberside Police are the responsible authority for dealing with criminal allegations made within the North East Lincolnshire area. Your complaint contained criminal allegations and was therefore directed quite properly to us to investigate.

                    We have completed our investigation, and whilst you do not agree with the outcome I have no intention of investigating further. If you contest that every member of Humberside Police is in some way partial there is clear evidence within my assessment of independence that refutes this. The investigator was a Detective Inspector, but I will not pass you their name as I am concerned that you will in some way seek to contact them due to your disagreement at the outcome.

                    That officer in their report to me did not feel it necessary to seek additional information. I concur with this assessment on the basis of the review report I have read.

                    I note that you have copied in the IPCC and I have copied this into the Chief Constable.

                    I will not enter into further correspondence in relation to this matter, but of course if you wish to make a complaint about your contact with me, or the investigation then please contact our Professional Standards Department.

                    Christine

                    Detective Chief Superintendent Christine Wilson
                    Head of Specialist Crime Command

                    Comment


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

                      Most local authorities automatically allocate payments that don't match an instalment to the oldest debt thus leaving the current years liability open to default and enforcement (though there are a few exceptions).

                      It has been argued (blue in the face) that the lawful position would be to allocate unspecified payments to the current years account to avoid engineering unnecessary enforcement and comply with relevant case authority.

                      Southwark Borough Council for some reason recently changed the way its council tax processing system automatically allocates payments where the amount paid does not exactly match an instalment.

                      The Council's 7 December 2016 response (FOI 720193) states that:

                      With effect from 10 October 2016 payments are allocated as follows:
                      • Payments received that exactly match an instalment are automatically allocated to the year the instalment relates to.

                      • If the payment amount does not exactly match an instalment the payment is automatically allocated to the most recent financial year.

                      • If a payment has been received in respect of a particular Liability Order (e.g. subject to an Attachment of Earnings, Attachment of Benefits or a Charging Order) it is manually allocated to the financial year(s) the Liability Order in question related to.

                      Prior to 10 October 2016, payments that did not exactly match an instalment and were not received to settle a particular Liability Order were allocated to the oldest debt first.
                      It would be interesting to know why Southwark have recently changed its stance and if there will be more to follow.
                      Last edited by outlawlgo; 7th December 2016, 18:13:PM.

                      Comment


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

                        Originally posted by outlawlgo View Post
                        Complaint sent to MP on 15 November 2016 for referral to Parliamentary Ombudsman.
                        Please note the following Parliamentary Ombudsman Decision Letter is contrived.

                        9 December 2016

                        Your complaint about HM Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS)

                        Thank you for sending your complaint to us. We are sorry to learn of your concerns. We have now completed our assessment of your complaint and we are writing to give you our decision. We have decided that we are unable to take further action on your complaint as the matters you have raised fall outside of the Ombudsman’s remit to consider. I will go on to explain this decision in detail below.

                        Your complaint

                        You have complained about various actions of HMCTS in relation to two court cases. In particular, you say in both of the cases the courts and the Judge did not take into account your evidence. You says the Judge colluded with the claimants, the CPS and the police to ensure that the case was ruled in favour of the claimants, and that you did not receive a fair trial. You also say HMCTS failed to reopen a case after a judge ruled against you when you did not attend in person.

                        Because of this, you say HMCTS colluded with the claimants, CPS and the police to financially defraud you. You say it aided the claimant in committing perjury, you say you have received unwarranted attention from court appointed bailiffs and have an incorrect conviction recorded against you.

                        You would like a financial remedy, and a role creating within HMCTS to ensure that issues like this do not remain unresolved in the future.

                        Our role

                        I thought it would be helpful to reiterate that our role is to undertake independent investigations into complaints that an organisation has not acted properly or fairly or has provided a poor service. In deciding whether to investigate a complaint, we first assess if we are legally able to consider the issues raised.

                        Our decision and reasons

                        We have carefully considered your complaint, the points you have raised in all your correspondence and the papers we have received from you, and have discussed these in detail with you over the phone.

                        Our legislation prevents us from looking at any issues that are an exercise of judicial or legislative function, or any actions, administrative or other, that have been taken on judicial authority, or under the orders of a Judge. We are only to look at matters that are administrative in nature, that have not been ordered or considered by a Judge.

                        We have discussed the case in detail with you over the phone, and have been unable to identify with you verbally, or in the documentation you have provided, any elements of complaint that would be within our remit to investigate. This is because you have not complained about administration failings on the part of HMCTS court staff but rather the actions or decisions of the court or the judge themselves. These are matters which we are not able to consider. For this reason, we will not be taking any further action on your complaint.

                        Other organisations complained about

                        You have expressed concerns that the Police, the CPS and the local council and the judiciary have acted inappropriately, and asked how you can raise your concerns in relation to these. I have the following information for you in relation to this:

                        Police – The Independent Police Complaints Commission advises you would need to make a complaint to the relevant police force. More information is available on its website at https://www.ipcc.gov.uk/complaints.

                        CPS – You can use an online form, email, post or telephone to complain about the CPS. More information is available at http://www.cps.gov.uk/contact/feedback_and_complaints/.

                        Local council – in the first instance, you will need to complete the complaints process with the council concerned. You should contact your local council to do this. If you remain unhappy with its response, you can contact the Local Government Ombudsman, further details available at http://www.lgo.org.uk.

                        The Judiciary – If you have a complaint about the Judiciary, you may wish to seek independent legal advice into pursuing this, or you may wish to contact the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office http://judicialconduct.judiciary.gov.uk/.

                        Summary

                        As we will not be taking further action on your complaint, I will now close it accordingly. I understand our decision may be disappointing to you but I do hope I have explained clearly the reasons for this.

                        Comment


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

                          This one from Durham County Council (8 December 2016 Response) is also worth quoting to errant councils that like to engineer payment default:

                          Where there is more than one year of Council Tax debt outstanding, payments are checked to ensure monies are allocated appropriately.

                          In accordance with internal procedure, firstly accounts are reviewed to determine
                          • If the customer has indicated where the payment is intended

                          • Whether the amount is similar or the same as an instalment

                          • Whether the payment is as a result of the issue of recent documentation

                          • Whether the payment is from a third party, i.e. a direct deduction (monies will be allocated to the relevant debt)

                          • Is there any impending action that would result in additional costs or hardship for the customer that could be avoided

                          Should none of the above apply, consideration will be given to ring-fencing the older debt and allocating payments to the current financial year.

                          Comment


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

                            From: outlawlgo
                            To: Monitoring officer (NELC)
                            Cc: local government ombudsman ; Humberside police ; Information commissioner
                            Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2017
                            Attach: Case stated application missing docs.pdf
                            Subject: Application to magistrates' court to quash liability order


                            Dear Mr Maione

                            Re: Application to magistrates' court to quash liability order

                            I write in reference to my email which was acknowledged by yourself on 5 January 2017 regarding undelivered documents in an application to the High court. I eventually obtained an unsigned copy of a key document on 3 January 2017 (over 3 years after it appears to have been produced), presumably prompted by involvement of my MP and Parliamentary Ombudsman.

                            The application is a case stated appeal with North East Lincolnshire Council (NELC) named the 'Respondent'. I have written confirmation from the court that by 13 January 2017 I will receive the signed 'case' which I intend lodging with the Administrative Office.

                            With reference to a Council Tax liability hearing on 30 October 2015 and subsequent complaint (NEL/1172/1516) which escalated to the Local Government Ombudsman, this is yet more evidence that my appeal to the High Court had never been withdrawn and the Magistrates' court granted a court order erroneously.

                            NELC succeeded in persuading the Magistrates' court that the council correctly allocated monies to a sum which was suspended pending the outcome of my High Court appeal on the basis that I had withdrawn the case and the sum no longer suspended.

                            Attached is a document containing a number of relevant correspondence arranged chronologically spanning the period of the undelivered letters (since obtained) and positioned in context. This, and information already held by the council should be enough to satisfy the magistrates' court that the liability order should not have been made. It is therefore a reasonable expectation that the council apply in accordance [with] regulation 36A of the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 to have the order quashed. When the council was previously asked to do this (See ANNEX A) the request was unsuccessful.

                            NELC should also recognise that those unfortunate enough to find themselves caught up in these matters are subjected to time consuming and destructive disputes which are completely disproportionate to the issues they concern. A resolution should therefore be sought at the earliest opportunity and not be allowed to continue indefinitely. The Council has a responsibility to put right its errors and adequately compensate for them, taking further into consideration the gross inconvenience caused when protracted over such lengthy periods of time.

                            If the Magistrates' court were to quash the liability order granted on 30 October 2015 then the £60 costs added in September 2015 would have been invalid and require removing from my account. The misallocated payment of £60 would require reallocating to the 2015/16 account and the disputed costs would remain suspended until the High Court appeal had concluded. Lastly, the £211 total outstanding on various accounts would be reduced to £91 (final instalment of 2015/16 account) which is an amount I do not dispute and would settle without fear of payment being allocated wrongly.


                            Yours sincerely


                            ANNEX A

                            Excerpt from 26 January 2016 letter (Formal Complaint NEL/1172/1516)


                            "Liability order

                            Lastly there is no reason why the council should assert that the concerns raised about the Liability order falls outside the scope of the complaints process.

                            The Local Government Act 2003 introduced into the Local Government Finance Act 1992 the provision enabling the secretary of state to make regulations giving magistrates' courts powers to quash a liability order if it was satisfied that one should not have been made. The explanatory notes to the 2003 Act describes the only avenue available for this before the provision which is as follows:

                            At present, this can only be achieved on application to a higher court. The cost involved is unwarranted where there is no dispute about the facts.”

                            I understand the above means a defendant may only appeal a decision to the High Court either by way of a case stated or judicial review. As implied, both are unreasonable procedures for an ordinary person to have to embark upon with it likely taking years (if ever) to succeed in having the case brought before the court. There is no dispute either about the facts in this case.

                            The application was made because the council had misallocated monies to a sum subject to appeal on the basis that it believed the case had been withdrawn and the sum no longer suspended. The appeal had never been withdrawn and the simple fact is that the council could not have believed it had by the incriminating evidence in the form of Exhibits which supported its witness statement. It has the minimum duty to apply to the Magistrates to have the liability order quashed as it has been brought to the council’s attention that the application should never have been made......."

                            Comment


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

                              Waiting with baited breath for the signed case. Well done for sticking with it.

                              Comment


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

                                From: Res - Customer Services
                                To: outlawlgo
                                Cc: local government ombudsman ; Humberside police ; Information commissioner
                                Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2017
                                Subject: FW: Application to magistrates' court to quash liability order

                                Dear outlawlgo

                                Thank you for your latest correspondence regarding this matter. To confirm North East Lincolnshire Council stands by the action taken and will not be undertaking any further investigation.

                                Yours sincerely on behalf of North East Lincolnshire Council


                                Eve Richardson-Smith LLB

                                Legal Team Manager & Deputy Monitoring Officer

                                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