• 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

  • #31
    Re: Misallocating payments and ignoring email to exploit Magistrates court costs

    The Council has not replied to my email instructing them that any payments should only be allocated to my current year's liability (not to the fraudulent summons costs).

    It's correspondence today (dated 8 November 15) makes it clear that it expects three instalments to be paid totalling £302 for the sum which amounts to £182 (the remaining outstanding council tax for this year).

    Dear Sir/Madam

    Special Payment Arrangement – Debt under Enforcement
    Account Number .....

    Number of payments
    On / commencing
    Amount £
    1
    01-Dec-2015
    100.66
    2
    01-Jan-2016
    100.67

    Payment frequency is :- Monthly

    If you do not make the first payment before the date shown above, this arrangement will be cancelled without further contact and recovery action will be taken against you. The Council may proceed to recover the debt by [attachment] of earnings, deduction from your benefit via the DWP, or your account may be passed to an Enforcement Agent (bailiff) which could mean you could incur additional fees and the possibility of your belongings being removed for sale at auction.

    If you are experiencing financial difficulties and are unable to commit to the above arrangement then you must complete the enclosed income and expenditure questionnaire making sure all areas are completed, with an offer of payment. The Council will in due course confirm if your offer to clear the amount is acceptable.

    Debt Management Section
    Note: There is no enclosed income and expenditure questionnaire and I suspect this is a mistake which it has duplicated 100s of times because of the process being automated.

    Not withstanding the missing questionnaire, I personally handed the form in to the council weeks ago with my income showing zero.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Misallocating payments and ignoring email to exploit Magistrates court costs

      Could this mean the force intends doing a proper job of investigating or just going through the motions?

      From: Humberside police
      To: 'outlawlgo'
      Sent: November 13, 2015
      Subject: RECENT CORRESPONDENCE WITH HUMBERSIDE POLICE

      [outlawlgo],

      I write with regard to your recent correspondence with Humberside Police. I have brought the matter to the attention of our Professional Standards Branch that are based at Priory Road in Hull. Someone will be in touch in due course.

      I would advise that you collate all evidence and intelligence that would support the claims you are making against the court.

      Yours sincerely,

      Police Sergeant

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Misallocating payments and ignoring email to exploit Magistrates court costs

        No surprises from the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office. Osborne is targeting the wrong things. If he shut down all these bogus and useless governing bodies he'd have the deficit sorted without having to penalise the poor.

        Judicial Conduct Complaint Outcome

        Judicial Conduct Investigations Office
        81 & 82 Queens Building
        Royal Courts of Justice
        Strand
        London
        WC2A 2LL
        DX44450 Strand

        27 November 2015

        Your complaint about District Judge (DJ) Curtis

        I am writing further to your complaint of 07 November 2015, received 09 November 2015, to inform you that the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO) is unable to accept it for consideration. This is because your complaint does not contain an allegation of misconduct on the part of a judicial office holder. Rule 8 of the Judicial Conduct (Judicial and other Office Holders) Rules 2014 requires that your complaint meets this criterion if it is to be considered as valid.

        In summary, you complain that DJ Curtis acted outside his powers and perverted the course of justice by making an order in the claimant’s favour despite your ‘indisputable evidence that a false and corrupt statement had been made’. You state that DJ Curtis was unwilling to listen to, accept or understand your evidence and you sensed ‘he pretended to be out of his depth as a strategy for denying evidence that might, if considered, defeat the claimant’s argument’. Further, you state that DJ Curtis was antagonistic and belittling as, in relation to your submissions, he commented that he had listened for half-an-hour to a political diatribe, only 5 minutes of which made sense, and he interrogated you about irrelevant matters concerning council tax instalments.

        The concerns put forward in your complaint, and summarised above, do not constitute a case of personal misconduct on the part of a judicial office holder. Your complaint relates to judicial decision and judicial case management. The JCIO is unable to investigate, challenge or question a judge’s decision or case handling because these are part of a judge’s function and not personal conduct. An essential part of a judge’s function is weighing up the evidence presented to them and applying the law accordingly. In order to carry out this aspect of their function, judges have discretion to determine the evidence they are willing to consider and the matters they wish to explore in a hearing, irrespective of whether a party considers those matters irrelevant. Further, although I note you state DJ Curtis was antagonistic and belittling, judges are entitled to respond to the parties’ evidence and I confirm that DJ Curtis’s response to your submissions would not be a matter of misconduct because it relates to his handling of the case in court.

        I note you state that your appeal to the High Court is still to be determined. I confirm that judicial decisions can only be challenged through the appeal process, where one exists, or by judicial review. The judicial discipline process cannot be used as alternative method for challenging any aspect of a judicial decision. For example, if a party were of the opinion that the decision in their case was influenced by bias, the appropriate course of action would be to appeal. This office is not able to review a judicial decision to be able to ascertain whether it was correct in law or made as a result of bias. The only way of determining this is for a case to be appealed and, therefore, subject to review by a higher court. If, on appeal, a judge was criticised for their decision because of bias, this could then be subject to consideration by this office and the Lord Chancellor and Lord Chief Justice.

        In regard to your court case, you may wish to consider seeking legal advice. Members of staff at the JCIO are not legally trained. However, you may find it helpful to seek advice from a solicitor, law centre or the Citizen’s Advice Bureau (http://www.citizensadvice.org.uk). The Civil Legal Service (CLS) – a Government organisation – might also be able to help. This service helps put people in touch with sources of legal advice in their area. Further details about the CLS can be found on their website (https://www.gov.uk/civil-legal-advice). The Bar Pro Bono Unit may also be of assistance. The Unit receives applications for assistance through advice agencies and solicitors. The Unit aims to help in cases where the applicant cannot afford to pay for the assistance sought or obtain public funding, has a meritorious case, and needs the help a barrister can provide. Further details about the charity and how to apply can be found on their website: www.barprobono.org.uk.

        With further reference to your allegation that DJ Curtis has perverted the course of justice, the JCIO does not have remit to consider criminal allegations. In the event that a judicial office holder was to be found guilty of committing a criminal offence, the matter may be referred to the JCIO for further consideration.

        Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman
        If you are unhappy about my handling of your complaint, you should contact the Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman, Sir John Brigstocke KCB. The Ombudsman can consider complaints about how I have handled your complaint, but he does not have the power to investigate your original complaint to the JCIO.

        The Ombudsman will consider a complaint if you write to him within 28 days of our decision. After this time, he will consider whether he is able to investigate it. You can contact the Ombudsman:

        • in writing at: 9th Floor Tower, 9.53, 102 Petty France, London, SW1H 9AJ;
        • by e-mail at headofoffice@jaco.gsi.gov.uk ; and
        • by telephone on 020 3334 2900.

        For further information about the Ombudsman see www.judicialombudsman.gov.uk



        Originally posted by outlawlgo View Post
        Judicial complaint submitted

        Allegations of Judicial Misconduct


        For the avoidance of doubt, this does not constitute an appeal of the court’s decision, it is a complaint made in accordance with the Judicial Conduct (Judicial and other office holders) Rules 2014 about the judge’s conduct on several counts which are set out in detail above and itemised as follows:

        i) Professional Misconduct
        ii) Criminal Allegations
        iii) Inappropriate Comments / Discrimination
        iv) Misuse of Judicial Powers


        I confirm that the information I have provided is correct

        Judicial Conduct and Investigations Office, Royal Courts of Justice,
        Queens Building, Strand, London WC2A 2LL
        Last edited by outlawlgo; 27th November 2015, 18:26:PM.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Misallocating payments and ignoring email to exploit Magistrates court costs

          From: Humberside police
          To: 'outlawlgo'
          Sent: November 13, 2015
          Subject: RECENT CORRESPONDENCE WITH HUMBERSIDE POLICE

          [outlawlgo],

          I write with regard to your recent correspondence with Humberside Police. I have brought the matter to the attention of our Professional Standards Branch that are based at Priory Road in Hull. Someone will be in touch in due course.

          I would advise that you collate all evidence and intelligence that would support the claims you are making against the court.

          Yours sincerely,

          Police Sergeant
          The police have written saying they're considering the matter but have not asked for further details.

          The witness statement has been produced anyway which they can have:

          Perjury to Commit Fraud 2nd December 2015

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Misallocating payments and ignoring email to exploit Magistrates court costs

            Made a submission to the Conduct Ombudsman regarding the Judicial Conduct Investigations handling of the complaint, just for the record and so that Sir John Brigstocke KCB can justify his salary.

            Only a couple of sections on the form are of any relevance:

            4. Your complaint
            The Judicial Conduct Investigations Office explained that my complaint could not be accepted for consideration because it did not contain an allegation of misconduct on the part of a judicial office holder. I disagree completely. It was in anticipation of this view that I deliberately emphasised that my complaint did not constitute an appeal of the court’s decision, but a complaint made in accordance with the Judicial Conduct (Judicial and other office holders) Rules 2014 about the judge’s conduct on several counts which coincided with the misconduct descriptions set out on the complaint application web page.

            Those were itemised as follows:

            i) Professional Misconduct
            ii) Criminal Allegations
            iii) Inappropriate Comments / Discrimination
            iv) Misuse of Judicial Powers

            The Caseworker was of the opinion that my complaint surrounded an appeal I had made to the High Court which was still to be determined. That was not my complaint. Details were only included as it was a relevant factor in the matter.

            The Caseworker gives an example where he considers a judge's bias is not a conduct matter but something for which the victim of that bias should be put to the trouble and expense of appealing to a higher court. There must be some incentive for a judge in the Magistrates' court to conduct himself properly, like having an effective watchdog, otherwise the only message that is sent out is that the hierarchical court system exists as an excuse for incompetence in the lower courts as they can claim fairness of the system with it being open to you to make use of the casino justice system by appealing a botched decision to a higher court.

            5. What are you hoping to achieve from your complaint?
            I am disgusted with how the justice system operates. There is simply no accountability for judges making appallingly bad decisions with the emphasis on bias towards the authorities. If what I've seen of it is typical I hope that my compliant goes some way to reforming the system which is apparently corrupt to the core. A start would be investigate why the judge in my case granted a liability order knowing that a false statement had been made by the claimant with the intention to defraud me.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Misallocating payments and ignoring email to exploit Magistrates court costs

              COMPLAINT TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT OMBUDSMAN
              (Part III of the Local Government Act 1974)


              AGAINST
              NORTH EAST LINCOLNSHIRE COUNCIL


              21 March 2016

              List of Annexes:

              Annex A: Council’s 14 March 2016 final response
              Annex B: 10 November 2015 email query to Council
              Annex C: 17 December 2015 formal complaint letter to Council
              Annex D: Council’s 21 December 2015 cover letter
              Annex E: Council’s 13 November 2015 response [see above Annex D]
              Annex F: 25 December 2015 second formal complaint letter to Council
              Annex G: Council’s 19 January 2016 first stage formal complaint response
              Annex H: 26 January 2016 third formal complaint letter to Council


              WHAT DO YOU THINK THE BODY DID WRONG?

              The complaint surrounds North East Lincolnshire Council (the “Council”) engineering default in circumstances where payments were made in sufficient amount to meet the legal obligation I was under to pay the sums set out on the demand notice relating to my 2015/16 Council Tax liability.

              The Council misallocated payments to a previous year’s balance, thus leaving a shortfall in respect of the current year’s account (that which the payment was intended). The presumed cause being that an instalment was met from two transactions, and with neither payment matching the instalment amount set for the current council tax year the system automatically posted it to the oldest balance. Payment however at least covered the amount owed at all times and was for part of the period in credit.

              The Council’s right to appropriate payment did not arise on account of the transaction not matching an instalment amount (not if doing so put the current year's liability in arrears). According to established appropriation laws, a debtor’s election may take an implied form, as well as expressed. Therefore, where payment is unspecified, it would be implied that the payment was intended for the account most beneficial to the debtor to reduce, which would clearly be the current year's, if allocating monies to another balance would put the current year’s account in arrears.

              R v Miskin Lower Justices (1953) held that where an amount so obviously relates to a specific liability, it would be an unwarranted assumption to allocate the payment elsewhere. Billing Authorities are able to set parameters in their revenue system so when payment amounts are not recognised, monies are allocated to the current year. The anomalies caused by automation are largely eliminated because of this since it ensures debtors do not incur additional costs through subsequent recovery applications. This is in agreement with the judgment in R v Miskin Lower justices, as it would be an unwarranted assumption to allocate monies to a sum in arrears if it is likely to also put the current year's liability in arrears.

              Note:

              A process that relies on automation such as the council tax payments system, will inevitably present a flexibility–efficiency tradeoff. Having the system set so unmatched payments are posted to the most recent account has to achieve greater compliance with the general principles which allow for implied payments, simply because the authority could not reasonably assume that the debtor would elect the oldest balance, knowing his current due payment was deficient and incur further expense. This approach would, for reasons self-evident, require less manual adjustment with respect to reallocating unmatched payments rendering the automated aspect of the process more compliant with the judgment in R v Miskin Lower justices.

              It is apparently standard practice, whichever way their systems are set, for billing authorities to regularly check unmatched payments to ascertain which account payment is intended, if there are arrears outstanding. However, what fundamentally matters (after initial payment allocation) is for the appropriation of those unmatched to the current year's liability if allocating payment to the oldest debt would put the current year's liability also in arrears.


              Balance suspended from enforcement

              The balance to which monies were misallocated by the council was in any event suspended from enforcement. Therefore, notwithstanding that the council’s right to appropriate payment did not arise, even if it had for whatever reason, it should have become immediately obvious from the account notes that the sum was subject to court proceedings. As there has been no outcome yet to the proceedings the suspension has not been lifted and the sum remains suspended. It was clear from my current council tax bill alone that the suspension had not been lifted as it was itemised separately and described as a sum ‘subject to court proceedings’. The relevant part of the council tax bill states under the header ‘Memorandum Note’ as follows:

              “Your instalments for 2015/16 do not include your 2014/15 account balance
              As at 27-FEB-2015 your 2014/15 Council Tax account balance is 60.00
              60.00 of the total is subject to court proceedings


              Linking matter of complaint to court proceedings

              The Council has refused to address the complaint with the justification being that it raises matters about a Liability Order and so falls outside the scope of the complaints process.

              It has been reiterated over the course of the complaint that the matter concerns payment misallocation. The council has taken it upon itself to redefine the matter so it appears to concern court proceedings for the obvious reason that it can deny me the opportunity of a just outcome to the formal complaint. Moreover, there is evidence this has been done in anticipating that the matter will be escalated to the LGO in the hope that its handiwork will fall in the hands of an acquiescent officer assigned to preliminary assess the complaint.

              The summons charge, to which no further sum is added on being granted the liability order, was applied to my account on or around the 15 September 2015, approximately two weeks before the application for a liability order was made to the Magistrates court. Therefore, the summons charge, which the council is claiming to be the matter of complaint, even if it was, concerned solely its actions, as the court has no jurisdiction over costs until the case is brought before the court.


              Other matters

              It would be negligent if I omitted to point out the disingenuous claim by the council which implies that its failure in responding within a reasonable time-frame is a rarity. I have from the same department had to wait four weeks for a reply in relation to a previous matter and even after the council had made the claim in its first stage response, the final response exceeded its own deadline by a week.

              The matter regarding my election for all payments to be allocated to the current year's liability, whether or not a sum matches an instalment amount, which was improperly addressed in the first stage response (and contended), was entirely ignored in the final response.


              HOW HAS THIS AFFECTED YOU?

              The error has caused the inconvenience of having to dispute the council's actions and the subsequent refusal to cooperate has caused the need to escalate the matter via the council’s formal complaints mechanism and of course enter into a complaint with the LGO. These actions alone have taken a significant amount of time and caused gross inconvenience. However the further consequences, which I would be prudent not to refer to in this complaint, have added substantially to that gross inconvenience.


              WHAT DO YOU THINK THE BODY SHOULD DO TO PUT THINGS RIGHT?

              The council was not entitled to allocate payment to the balance it did and therefore it should be reallocated to the account to which it was intended.

              According to the council, there is an outstanding sum of £211 in respect of my 2015/16 council tax liability. If the effects of the error were put right, it would require that the misallocated payment of £60 is reallocated to the 2015/16 account (restoring the previous outstanding balance); the £60 penalty added September 2015 would have been invalid and so require removing from my account. The remaining sum outstanding would be £91 which I would then be able to settle without fear of further maladministration attributable to the council allocating it wrongly.

              The council has implied in its 13 November 2015 letter that it does not intend allocating all future payments in accordance with my election. In order to clarify this I instructed the council, as I am lawfully entitled, that unless there were express instructions (in writing) to the contrary, payment should be allocated to the current year's liability, whether or not a sum matches an instalment amount.

              The seriousness of the failure to take these measures can not be over stated. Prompt action is required to ensure that the immediate consequences of the error are remedied and also to prevent unwarranted enforcement measures that may otherwise follow. Should the error not be remedied it is likely a constant cycle of recovery action will result, incurring additional costs which will accumulate over time to be sufficient in amount that the council will achieve its clearly vindictive aim of justifying taking action such as bankruptcy or imposing a custodial sentence.

              It would be reasonable to expect the council offer payment of a suitable amount firstly as compensation for the error, and secondly for its intransigence by refusing to cooperate, causing the added inconvenience I'm being put to.

              Annex A to H .......

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Misallocating payments and ignoring email to exploit Magistrates court costs

                Local Govermnent
                OMBUDSMAN

                11 April 2016


                Mr outlawlgo

                Our ref: 15 020 295
                (Please quote our reference when contacting us and, if using email, put the number in the email subject line)

                Contact Chris Upjohn on 0330 403 4676 or by email to c.upjohn@coinweb.lgo.org.uk

                Dear Mr outlawlgo

                Complaint against North East Lincolnshire Council

                The Ombudsman has asked me to assess your complaint to see if it is about a matter we can or should investigate. Based on the information I have, my current view is that we should not investigate your complaint. The enclosed draft decision explains how and why I have reached this view.

                Before I make a final decision, I should welcome your comments on what I say in the draft decision. If you do wish to comment, please ensure that I receive your response by 20 April 2016.

                If I have heard nothing by then, I will likely make a formal decision not to investigate your complaint for the reasons explained in the draft decision. If you need more time to comment, please explain why this is and I will consider your request.

                You will see that I have referred to you as ‘Mr B’ in the statement. This is because we have a commitment to publish all of our decisions on our website if possible. If you consider that publication of the decision will identify you, please explain why this is and we will consider whether to make an exception to our normal policy.


                Yours sincerely


                Chris Upjohn
                Investigator, Assessment Team

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Misallocating payments and ignoring email to exploit Magistrates court costs

                  Draft Decision
                  Local Govermnent
                  OMBUDSMAN
                  11 April 2016

                  Complaint reference:
                  15 020 295

                  Complaint against:
                  North East Lincolnshire Council


                  The Ombudsman’s draft decision

                  Summary: The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint that the Council allocated council tax payments to the wrong account. The courts are better placed to deal with this matter.
                  __________________________________________________ ______

                  The complaint


                  1. The complainant, who I refer to here as Mr B, has complained the Council has allocated council tax payments to the wrong account.


                  The Ombudsman’s role and powers

                  2. The Ombudsman provides a free service, but must use public money carefully. She may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if, for example, she believes another body is better placed to deal with the matter. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

                  How I considered this complaint

                  3. I have considered what Mr B said in his complaint.


                  What I found

                  4. Mr B says he made payments to his council tax account for 2015/16 but the Council allocated these to the account for an earlier year. He says the Council did not follow the law when doing this.


                  5. Because the Council believed Mr B had not made the required payments for 2015/16, it applied to the magistrates’ court for a liability order.


                  Draft decision

                  6. Mr B believes the Council’s actions are wrong in law. The Ombudsman cannot decide the law, only the courts can do that. My current view is that Mr B could have put any arguments about the Council’s actions to the magistrates’ court which was better placed to deal with this matter. For this reason, the Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint.

                  Investigator’s draft decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Misallocating payments and ignoring email to exploit Magistrates court costs

                    Originally posted by outlawlgo View Post
                    Draft Decision
                    Local Govermnent
                    OMBUDSMAN
                    11 April 2016

                    Complaint reference:
                    15 020 295

                    Complaint against:
                    North East Lincolnshire Council


                    The Ombudsman’s draft decision

                    Summary: The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint that the Council allocated council tax payments to the wrong account. The courts are better placed to deal with this matter.
                    __________________________________________________ ______

                    The complaint


                    1. The complainant, who I refer to here as Mr B, has complained the Council has allocated council tax payments to the wrong account.


                    The Ombudsman’s role and powers

                    2. The Ombudsman provides a free service, but must use public money carefully. She may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if, for example, she believes another body is better placed to deal with the matter. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

                    How I considered this complaint

                    3. I have considered what Mr B said in his complaint.


                    What I found

                    4. Mr B says he made payments to his council tax account for 2015/16 but the Council allocated these to the account for an earlier year. He says the Council did not follow the law when doing this.


                    5. Because the Council believed Mr B had not made the required payments for 2015/16, it applied to the magistrates’ court for a liability order.


                    Draft decision

                    6. Mr B believes the Council’s actions are wrong in law. The Ombudsman cannot decide the law, only the courts can do that. My current view is that Mr B could have put any arguments about the Council’s actions to the magistrates’ court which was better placed to deal with this matter. For this reason, the Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint.

                    Investigator’s draft decision on behalf of the Ombudsman
                    The Ombudsman has the power to investigate but seemingly is choosing not to. Is this an abuse of discretionary powers?

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Misallocating payments and ignoring email to exploit Magistrates court costs

                      Originally posted by Openlaw15 View Post
                      The Ombudsman has the power to investigate but seemingly is choosing not to. Is this an abuse of discretionary powers?
                      I would say so. The further injustice – caused ironically by the organisation which is supposed to provide a remedy for it – has forced me to research the LGO's jurisdiction / obligations etc. etc., and found that there's quite a lot of material on the subject. Some of it provided by the LGO itself. For example: Guidance on jurisdiction

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Misallocating payments and ignoring email to exploit Magistrates court costs

                        Originally posted by outlawlgo View Post
                        I would say so. The further injustice – caused ironically by the organisation which is supposed to provide a remedy for it – has forced me to research the LGO's jurisdiction / obligations etc. etc., and found that there's quite a lot of material on the subject. Some of it provided by the LGO itself. For example: Guidance on jurisdiction
                        Here's law commission's 2011 discussion on Obudsman law in general. http://www.bailii.org/ew/other/EWLC/2011/329.html

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Misallocating payments and ignoring email to exploit Magistrates court costs

                          Representations on the Local Govermnent Ombudsman's 11 April 2016 draft decision. Complaint reference: 15 020 295 against North East Lincolnshire Council


                          The Ombudsman’s draft decision

                          Summary: The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint that the Council allocated council tax payments to the wrong account. The courts are better placed to deal with this matter.
                          Simply stating that ‘the courts are better placed to deal with this’ indicates that insufficient consideration has been given to the matter. The statement is unhelpful as no available court process has been conveyed to advise of the remedy, nor is any explanation offered for why the courts are better placed to deal with it.

                          The available court process in all probability has not been considered because if it had, the likely conclusion would be that the only remedy would be via the High Court either by a claim for judicial review or an appeal by way of a case stated. Clearly with all that that entails it would not be reasonable to expect that such litigation was resorted to.

                          In that regard, the Ombudsman has discretion as a number of reports acknowledge; for example, paragraph 4 of LGO ref: 14 009 989:

                          “The law says the Ombudsman cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, she may decide to investigate if she considers it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c).”

                          The concluding sentence of sub-section 6 of section 26 of the Local Government Act 1974 states as follows:

                          “Provided that a Local Commissioner may conduct an investigation notwithstanding the existence of such a right or remedy if satisfied that in the particular circumstances it is not reasonable to expect the person aggrieved to resort or have resorted to it.”

                          Additionally, LGO
                          Guidance on jurisdiction (commencement of proceedings) introduces the idea that court proceedings may be the injustice as opposed to the fault, particularly concerning cases where, had no fault occurred, court proceedings could have been avoided. The relevant paragraph is as follows:

                          “The exclusion of court proceedings from the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction was intended to prevent us considering those matters decided by the courts using different evidential standards, and applying the more restrictive test of legality as opposed to maladministration. But there is no prohibition of an investigation about whether, had fault not occurred, court proceedings could have been avoided. This is because, in such cases the court proceedings are the injustice as opposed to the fault. We have in the past criticised councils for taking bankruptcy proceedings where – even though the application was successful – we did not feel it was a proportionate response to enforcement of a debt, given the prohibitive nature of the costs involved for the person being made bankrupt. We have also found fault with councils obtaining Liability Orders from the courts for unpaid Council Tax where they should not have done so.”

                          The relevant fact sheet (
                          Council Tax) on the LGO website under heading ‘...what will the Ombudsman look for?’, mainly covers aspects pertinent to this complaint. Those under that heading which are relevant, are quoted as follows:

                          “We consider whether the council has done something wrong in the way it went about dealing with your council tax account which has caused you problems. Some issues we can look at are if the council:

                          .........

                          • failed to act on information you provided (especially where this affects your liability for council tax or your entitlement to discounts or exemptions)

                          • delayed in dealing with disputes

                          • made mistakes in dealing with your payments (such as failing to credit them to your account, allocating them to the wrong account, or failing to pay in council tax support you have been awarded)

                          • continued to take recovery action against you when it shouldn’t (such as when you have already paid off the debt, or you are keeping to an agreed arrangement to pay the debt)

                          .........”

                          The complaint

                          1. The complainant, who I refer to here as Mr B, has complained the Council has allocated council tax payments to the wrong account.

                          The Ombudsman’s role and powers

                          2. The Ombudsman provides a free service, but must use public money carefully. She may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if, for example, she believes another body is better placed to deal with the matter. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

                          As almost all council decisions can be challenged in the courts, this reasoning could be viewed as an abuse of the Ombudsman’s discretionary powers given that it may be applied in almost every case where, for example, the investigator is under pressure to filter out complaints. With regards the use of public money, the fact that as a taxpayer I have contributed to funding the service makes a greater argument that the injustice I have been caused is investigated and should not have to resort to alternative costly remedies. LGO Guidance on Jurisdiction states with relevance to this point as follows:

                          “Almost any decision by a public body is actionable in the courts. As we are publicly funded to decide complaints of maladministration causing injustice, we should not be unduly prescriptive in relying on the availability of alternative remedies. Unlike many alternative remedies, the LGO is free to use, does not normally require expert representation, and we do not impose costs on those whose cases we do not uphold.”

                          Having been alerted to council officers who are using their public office as a means to carry out personal vendettas, if the organisation were in these circumstances to exercise discretion not to investigate there must be factored into that decision what risk it would pose as to the organisation’s reputation.

                          How I considered this complaint

                          3. I have considered what Mr B said in his complaint.
                          One important aspect of the complaint apparently overlooked is the Council flatly refusing to address the grievance (except the delay) with the justification being that it raised matters about a Liability Order and so was outside the scope of the complaints process. This is wholly inexcusable because regardless of the court’s decision, the council is entitled to apply to the same court which granted the order to have it quashed if it came to light afterwards that the application should not have been made. The Council is exploiting the court granting the order to circumvent scrutiny, when fully aware that it was seriously at fault in its actions.

                          What I found


                          4. Mr B says he made payments to his council tax account for 2015/16 but the Council allocated these to the account for an earlier year. He says the Council did not follow the law when doing this.
                          This over simplifies as well as misrepresents the complaint and is what I had predicted the Council would rely on to get away with being exposed for what is essentially gross error. Presumably the “Effective Complaint Handling” courses offered at a fee by the LGO to local authorities include content informing them how best to produce their responses so on being considered, the Ombudsman will have material to which may be referred in order to reject the complaint based upon it being outside her jurisdiction.

                          LGO Guidance suggests that an investigator with delegated authority to make decisions would be required to identify “aspects of complaint which are separable” from points on law, and those that can, be will be within jurisdiction. So, to give just two examples where the matters can be positively separated from questions of law are:-

                          i) The balance to which monies were misallocated by the council was suspended from enforcement, therefore it was maladministration that has caused the injustice

                          ii) Council’s 6 week delay in responding to correspondence was to my detriment, as this enabled the council to misallocate further monies during that period, and even though admitting its error, has refused to allocate it to the account I requested.

                          Moreover, it is evident from a report on an investigation into Newham BC (ref 08 019 113) that the ombudsman retains ‘jurisdiction to investigate administrative actions prior to the issue of court proceedings’. This ties in with the Guidance where it deals with the aforementioned ‘commencement of proceedings’ and the claim made that the LGO has ‘found fault with councils obtaining Liability Orders from the courts for unpaid Council Tax where they should not have done’. Furthermore, listed among the matters that are IN jurisdiction under the same heading is ‘the process leading up to the council’s decision to commence proceedings.

                          5. Because the Council believed Mr B had not made the required payments for 2015/16, it applied to the magistrates’ court for a liability order.

                          The Council was fully aware that the balance to which monies were misallocated was suspended from enforcement by the simple fact that the appeal to which the sum related had not been determined. The council had written in this matter to the effect that until there was an outcome to the proceedings the sum was suspended.

                          Draft decision

                          6. Mr B believes the Council’s actions are wrong in law. The Ombudsman cannot decide the law, only the courts can do that. My current view is that Mr B could have put any arguments about the Council’s actions to the magistrates’ court which was better placed to deal with this matter. For this reason, the Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint.

                          The complaint partly surrounded the Council’s unlawful actions and evidence of that was supported in my representations. However, what matters as far as the Ombudsman is concerned is the part of the complaint that is attributable to maladministration which even considered alone effectively accounts for the entire injustice. An investigation into the Council’s unlawful actions would clearly be beneficial, but one into the maladministration in its own right would be capable of providing the remedy sought. To reiterate an earlier point, matters can be positively separated from questions of law, which is endorsed in R v Local Commissioner etc
                          [2000] EWCA) Civ 54 where at paragraph 47 of that judgment it states, so far as is relevant, the following:

                          “The Commissioner's power is to investigate and report on maladministration; not to determine whether conduct has been unlawful. So there is no reason why, when exercising the power to investigate and report, (which has been conferred on him by the 1974 Act) he should, necessarily, be constrained by the legal principles which would be applicable if he were carrying out the different task (for which he has no mandate) of determining whether conduct has been unlawful.”

                          The fact sheet referred to earlier but under heading ‘what happens if the Ombudsman finds that the council was at fault?’, could in almost every sense be applicable to this complaint:

                          “We cannot decide whether you are liable to pay council tax or whether you are entitled to exemptions or discounts. But, if we find that something has gone wrong in the way the council dealt with your council tax account we can ask it to:

                          • take action to put the matter right, such as correcting mistakes on council tax records and issuing the right bills and demands

                          • ensure that payments you have made or council tax support awards are properly paid into your account

                          • deal with your correspondence or appeal

                          • withdraw a summons or bailiffs and waive costs where appropriate, or

                          • pay compensation. Whether we ask for compensation and the amount we recommend will depend on how you have been affected by what has gone wrong. For example if you have received any unnecessary summonses, liability orders or bailiffs visits because of the council’s errors.

                          Where we find fault with the council’s procedures we will often recommend that the council makes changes so the same problem does not occur again in the future.

                          Examples of some complaints we have considered

                          Ms Y set up a standing order to pay her council tax. There was no council tax reference number on the standing order form so the council did not allocate her payments to her account. The council knew about the mistake, and Ms Y provided proof of payment several times. However, it took the council six years to resolve the problem. Meantime the council continued to take legal action against her for money she did not owe. The Ombudsman asked the council to pay Ms Y £1,800 for the many summonses, liability orders and bailiffs' letters she had received and for her efforts in pursuing her complaint over a long period. The council also agreed to make changes to its process for dealing with missing payments”

                          Investigator’s draft decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Misallocating payments and ignoring email to exploit Magistrates court costs

                            Local Govermnent
                            OMBUDSMAN
                            20 April 2016

                            Complaint reference:
                            15 020 295

                            Complaint against:
                            North East Lincolnshire Council


                            The Ombudsman’s final decision

                            Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint that the Council allocated council tax payments to the wrong account. The courts are better placed to deal with this matter.
                            __________________________________________________ ______

                            The complaint


                            1. The complainant, who I refer to here as Mr B, has complained the Council has allocated council tax payments to the wrong account.


                            The Ombudsman’s role and powers

                            2. The Ombudsman provides a free service, but must use public money carefully. She may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if, for example, she believes another body is better placed to deal with the matter. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

                            How I considered this complaint

                            3. I have considered what Mr B said in his complaint. Mr B also commented on a draft before I made this decision.


                            What I found

                            4. Mr B says he made payments to his council tax account for 2015/16 but the Council allocated these to the account for an earlier year. He says the Council did not follow the law when doing this.


                            5. Because the Council believed Mr B had not made the required payments for 2015/16, it applied to the magistrates’ court for a liability order.


                            Final decision

                            6. Mr B believes the Council’s actions are wrong in law. The Ombudsman cannot decide the law, only the courts can do that. Mr B could have put any arguments about the Council’s actions to the magistrates’ court which was better placed to deal with this matter. For this reason, the Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint.

                            Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Misallocating payments and ignoring email to exploit Magistrates court costs

                              GRIMSBY AND CLEETHORPES
                              MAGISTRATES’ COURT

                              (Code 1940)
                              Application to start a prosecution
                              (s1 Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980)

                              Listed: 26 April 2016

                              outlawlgo
                              (Prosecution)
                              v
                              Humberside Police
                              (Defendant)


                              STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE


                              LIST OF EXHIBITS

                              Magistrates’ Courts Act, s 1 (Information) Exhibit 1
                              Email from Humb Police Exhibit 2
                              Email to Humb Police Exhibit 3
                              Email from Humb Police Exhibit 4
                              Evidence supporting allegations Exhibit 5
                              Humb Police confirming recording of complaint Exhibit 6
                              Humb Police outcome of complaint Exhibit 7
                              Appeal against outcome of complaint Exhibit 8
                              Costs suspended until outcome of proceedings Exhibit 9
                              Council’s Witness Statement Exhibit 10
                              Screen shots of internet forum posts Exhibit 11
                              Council’s Exhibit (NELC12) Exhibit 12
                              Original letter to Administrative Court Exhibit 13
                              Original letter from Administrative Court Exhibit 14
                              Email “Read Receipt” from Council Exhibit 15
                              Email “Read Receipt” from Council Exhibit 16
                              Email “Read Receipt” from Council Exhibit 17
                              Letter to the Justices’ Clerk (query delivery of case) Exhibit 18
                              Letter to the Justices’ Clerk (query delivery of case) Exhibit 19
                              Letter to the Justices’ Clerk (requesting certificate) Exhibit 20
                              S 26 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 Exhibit 21
                              1. This statement and the above listed provides evidence to support the information laid on 8.3.16 [Exhibit 1].

                              2. On 12.11.15, Humberside Police (‘HP’) responded by stating that a reported crime (one punishable as an offence whether occurring in criminal or civil proceedings), was a civil matter [Exhibit 2].

                              3. An email expressing dissatisfaction with HP’s response was sent 12.11.15 stating that a complaint would be submitted about whoever within the force made the decision. A request was made for the matter to be escalated for the attention of the Chief Constable so dissatisfaction of a subsequent decision would be subject to external scrutiny rather than the force investigating itself. [Exhibit 3].

                              4. HP made contact on 13.11.15, advising that all evidence should be collated to support the allegations [Exhibit 4]. HP confirmed in a letter dated 23.11.15 that the Professional Standards Branch was in receipt of the complaint. The advice was acted on regarding the evidence and a statement produce dated 2.12.15 [Exhibit 5]. A number of supporting documents were indexed but withheld awaiting assurance that they would be considered but the documents were never asked for.

                              5. A letter dated 8.12.15 from HP confirmed that the matter had been formally recorded (CO 461/15) and enclose a copy of the complainant report [Exhibit 6]. The letter (outcome) in relation to the complaint was sent on 13.1.16 [Exhibit 7] stating that unless a request comes from the court, HP do not investigate allegations of perjury and was a matter to be argued with the court.

                              6. On 15.1.16 Grimsby Magistrates’ court was forwarded HP’s outcome letter and asked if it would confirm that the North East Lincolnshire Council (the ‘Council’) had in fact produced a false witness statement and inform HP (the court had been forwarded the statement [Exhibit 5] on 11.12.15). The court replied in this matter on 26.1.16 stating that it would not be taking any action regarding the allegations of perjury.

                              7. An appeal against the outcome of local resolution was submitted on 25.1.16 [Exhibit 8] but to date there has been no update in relation to any progress made.


                              Exhibits supporting false statement

                              8. In summary, the council applied to the Magistrates' court to obtain a Council Tax liability order relating to the 2015/16 tax year. Payments were made in sufficient amount to meet the legal obligation to pay the sums set out on the demand notice and so the account was never in arrears.

                              9. The Council engineered a 'non-payment' scenario, by allocating monies to a disputed sum which related to a previous year's account that was under appeal to the High Court. That sum was suspended [Exhibit 9] pending the court's decision which has yet to be concluded. The Council allocate monies to the wrong account attributing that decision to believing that the sum was no longer disputed because the appeal had been withdrawn (paras 69 & 73 of the Council’s Witness Statement submitted for Council Tax liability hearing 30.10.15 [Exhibit 10]).

                              10. Evidence held supports that this claim was untrue, not on account of the appeal never being withdrawn (though it hasn't), but specifically because it is beyond all reasonable doubt that the council knew it had not been withdrawn. The Council posted monies to the suspended account on the premise that it believed the appeal had been withdrawn and therefore did so fraudulently.

                              11. It is beyond reasonable doubt that two internet forum posts [Exhibit 11] were the source of one of the Council’s exhibits (NELC12) referred to in its Witness Statement for Council Tax liability hearing 30.10.15 [Exhibit 12]. These were two letters on which the Council sought to rely in justifying having ‘no further reason to believe that the costs were being disputed’ because the ‘application for the Judicial review of the costs' had been withdrawn.

                              12. The original letters one dated 20.11.13 [Exhibit 13] was in response to the Administrative Court's recommendation to withdraw the judicial review claim as the process had prompted the Magistrates to produce a draft case and deemed there no longer a need for further action on their part as the process of stating a case was underway.

                              Note
                              : The judicial review claim, which was a separate matter from the application to state a case for an appeal challenging the costs, was merely the vehicle used to get the Magistrates' court to comply with the procedure. The judicial review claim therefore was for a mandatory order, not a 'review of the costs' and so the case stated appeal challenging the summons costs had not been withdrawn.

                              The other letter dated 25.11.13 [Exhibit 14] was the Administrative Court's response to confirm that the letter to withdraw had been accepted and the Court file closed.

                              13. The letters contained in the Council’s submission had been redacted and matched the entries that were posted on the public forum. The forum is the only place from which those letters could be sourced in that form. The characteristics (redaction, formatting etc.) of the letters which the Council submitted to the court were identical to the forum posts [Exhibit 10].

                              14. The Council had for some reason not sought the original letters and made use of the website where every correspondence connected with the matter (albeit redacted) could be conveniently accessed. It is likely that if the Council had made use of the forum to produce its submission, it would have been informed from the regular updates posted that the case stated appeal was still being pursued. Even if the forum was not regularly viewed it was enough that it did once to source content to be certain that it knowingly made a false statement. The crux of the matter is that one of the posts from which the content was sourced [Exhibit 11] (though omitted) had the following commentary accompanying it which reinforced the matter in itself:

                              “Back almost to square one.

                              Although the judicial review claim for mandatory order was not entirely successful in mandating the Magistrates' Court to state the case (other than the draft), it would never have been known there was a possibility to negotiate the terms of a recognizance at the hearing. It took this process to prompt a response from the Justices at Grimsby Magistrates' Court.

                              The next move then will be to arrange to appear before the Magistrates' Court to agree terms of a recognizance.”


                              Receipt of correspondence acknowledged after judicial review claim withdrawn

                              15. The Council had acknowledged receiving letters (email attachments) by way of 'read receipts' returned on 15 January [Exhibit 15], 14 February [Exhibit 16] and 23 April 2014 [Exhibit 17] in respect of letters dated 10 January [Exhibit 18], 13 February [Exhibit 19] and 22 April 2014 [Exhibit 20]. Those letters, which were copies of correspondence sent to the Justices' Clerk concerned matters that left no doubt that the high court appeal was still being pursued, and sent after the judicial review claim for mandatory order was withdrawn.

                              16. The appropriation of monies was supported by the Council on the basis that it believed the appeal had been withdrawn, and on that basis alone. The council officer had therefore wilfully made a statement material in the proceeding, which he knew was untrue. As a consequence the Council now has a court order enabling it to enforce a fraudulently obtained sum, which is likely to accumulate because of additional costs which will over time to be sufficient in amount so the council will claim justification in taking measures such as bankruptcy, charging order or applying for a custodial sentence.


                              Improper exercise of police powers and privileges

                              17. HP’s decision not to act, especially in light of the indisputable evidence must amount to improperly exercising police powers under subsections (5) and (6) of Section 26 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 [Exhibit 21] as clearly the failure to exercise a power is to the detriment of another person.

                              18. This statement is true to the best of my knowledge and belief.


                              Dated this 25th day of April 2016


                              Signed:

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Misallocating payments and ignoring email to exploit Magistrates court costs

                                Mr [outlawlgo]

                                Application by an individual to commence criminal proceedings by issue of summons.


                                This is an application by [X] to lay an information for the issue of a summons alleging an offence under section 26. Criminal Justice & Courts Act 2015 against Gillian Morley of the Humberside Police.

                                1). Mr X has been invited to attend Grimsby Magistrates Court for an ex parte private hearing and has declined the invitation.

                                2). I have read statements of evidence by Mr X dated 2nd December 2015 and 25th April 2016, together with those exhibits which were sent to the Clerk to the Justices.

                                3). I find that Mr X is aggrieved at a decision of the Grimsby Magistrates Court in October 2015 making or confirming a liability order in respect of allegedly unpaid council tax. He complains that the order was achieved because a Local Authority officer gave perjured evidence. He is aggrieved as well that the District Judge (Magistrates Court) hearing and making the liability order was complicit in the perjury and thus himself was guilty of perverting the course of justice.

                                4). I am told that no appeal has been lodged.

                                5). Mr X invited the Police to investigate the alleged perjury. The Police declined to. On 11th November 2015 Gillian Morley informed Mr X that the matter did not concern the police as it was a civil matter.

                                6). Mr X complained that the decision of the Police not to investigate was an improper exercise of a power in accordance with section 26 of Criminal Justice & Courts Act 2015, and that that failure to investigate triggers his current application.

                                7). Mr X has made a complaint to the Police. That has been rejected and Mr X is aggrieved by that.

                                8). I have referred myself to Stones Justices manual; and to R v West London Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate ex parte Khan (1979) and in particular to the explanation to the approach to issuing a summons by Lord Widgery C.J.

                                9). I have a discretion whether or not to issue a summons. I do not issue a summon because the application is vexatious
                                (a) Mr X seeks to proceed on an offence that is not designed for this type of circumstance. Further the application overlooks the reasonable person test in sections 26(4)(b) and 26 (5)(c).
                                (b) His grievance is really about the October 2015 order and the evidence of the Local Authority.
                                (c) He has had the opportunity to appeal the October 2015 decision but he has chosen not to.
                                (d) He appears to be using this application as a collateral attack to (b) above.

                                N P Hayles
                                Deputy District Judge (MC)
                                26/04/2016

                                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