• 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

  • #46
    Re: Misallocating payments and ignoring email to exploit Magistrates court costs

    The Ombudsman and the police and the judge all ignore the fact that the legislation is set up such that this blithe invitation to use the appeal process is utterly unreasonable, and peculiar to council tax. I assume the legislation was set up this way on purpose. It needs to be recognised and dealt with. Nicolson proved it, £32,000 for his representation and a risk of a similar (or greater) amount against him if he lost. If the Ombudsman and the police and judges don't want to be put in this position, who better to campaign against it? But they just kick it away like so much irritation. Not my hot potato.

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Misallocating payments and ignoring email to exploit Magistrates court costs

      Originally posted by outlawlgo View Post
      (b) His grievance is really about the October 2015 order and the evidence of the Local Authority.
      Well, yes. Evidence which was criminal? And the officer said it was civil. The officer was wrong.

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Misallocating payments and ignoring email to exploit Magistrates court costs

        Originally posted by Adamna View Post
        Well, yes. Evidence which was criminal? And the officer said it was civil. The officer was wrong.
        Of course, the judge, lgo, police etc., are talking spuriously because like you say the matter is criminal and not something you can appeal to another judge in the casino justice system.

        Some useful information on the Crown Prosecution Service's website (discovered recently) states that the police do not have to be instructed by the court to investigate perjury, which is what Humberside police claims to be its policy.

        Cases Involving Allegations of Perjury

        "Where a judge or magistrate believes that some evidence adduced at trial is perjured s/he can recommend that there should be a police investigation.

        The absence of such recommendation does not mean that there is no justification for an investigation
        .

        That conflicts with Humberside Police's Professional Standards Branch decision not to investigate the allegation as in its 13 January 2016 outcome letter it states:

        Humberside Police do not investigate allegations of perjury unless a request to do so comes from the court themselves.

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Misallocating payments and ignoring email to exploit Magistrates court costs

          You'll be hitting your keyboard then.... keep going.

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Misallocating payments and ignoring email to exploit Magistrates court costs

            Originally posted by outlawlgo View Post

            1). Mr X has been invited to attend Grimsby Magistrates Court for an ex parte private hearing and has declined the invitation.
            The reasons for declining the invitation were communicated to the court as follows:
            From: "outlawlgo"
            To: "HU-Grimsbymclist"
            Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2016
            Subject: Re: outlawlgo


            Dear Mr Townell

            Thank you for your letter concerning my application to start a prosecution.

            Regarding the hearing and the date set to lay the information, my understanding was that an information was laid as soon as it is received in the clerk's office, which was in effect 8 March 2016. In any event, it is likely, given the absence of a level playing field that as a member of the public, up against a body having access to public money for legal representation, the chances of a successful outcome would be zero, no matter how concrete the evidence.

            I have taken the step of laying an information as a last resort, since being met with a lack of will on the part of public bodies funded by the taxpayer to deal with matters like this on their behalf. It has been an essential move to get this serious matter of fraud and corruption out in the open and hopefully taken seriously. However, the time, stress and expense in doing this has gone far beyond what a member of the public should reasonably be expected to commit in subsidising the services that our taxes fund.

            Of course, to carry on any further with this by myself would be completely insane as the potential financial loss would be far beyond my means and would in all probability result in the loss of my home, and it is therefore suggested alternatively that all evidence I hold is made available and the case referred to the Crown Prosecution Service. This looks to be a realistic proposal because, for example, a justices' clerk may refer a private prosecution to the CPS under s.7(4) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985.

            On another point related to this matter it may be relevant to inform you that I have contacted North East Lincolnshire Council today after looking into how matters of fraud should be dealt with and it appears that this matter has not been dealt with in accordance with its own policies. Of course it is too early in the day to know whether the council will act on my instructions to carry out an investigation into fraud and corruption in accordance with it's whistleblowing policy, but this has to be a potential remedy.

            Yours sincerely

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Misallocating payments and ignoring email to exploit Magistrates court costs

              Julie Collins
              Courts & Tribunal Manager
              Humber & South Yorkshire Area


              A Watts, Clerk to the Justices
              Grimsby Magistrates’ Court
              Victoria Street, Grimsby
              North East Lincolnshire
              DN31 1HN

              Our ref: GT
              06 May 2016
              Dear Mr [outlawlgo],


              I write in respect of your recent email to the Data Access & Compliance Unit under the name [outlawlgo].

              The matter has been passed to me as this is not a Freedom of Information case.

              There is no information to impart as you have already been sent the reasons for the decision made by Deputy District Judge Hayles on 26 April 2016.

              If you are aggrieved by the decision not to issue a summons you can apply for judicial review of that decision.

              You may wish to take independent legal advice before taking such a course of action.

              I have sent you an attached guide which sets out the different stages in the procedure, along with information on fees and costs.

              Yours sincerely,

              Graeme Townell
              Legal Team Manager
              Grimsby Magistrates’ Court

              Unbelievable how much front these people have.....suggesting an appeal in the High Court.

              This is the court's track record when that advice is taken:

              Chronology of events (from case bundle documents for high court court application).

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Misallocating payments and ignoring email to exploit Magistrates court costs

                North East Lincolnshire Council's letter in response to allegations of false statement etc., and for that crime to be investigated through its whistleblowing procedure.

                Tony Maione - Monitoring Officer and
                Chief Legal Officer – Law
                Solicitor, LL.B. (Hons), LL.M.


                11 May 2016

                Dear Mr outlawlgo

                Re: Claims of false statement to defraud through council tax liability application


                I have reviewed your email dated 21 April 2016 and as you have commenced legal proceedings in relation to this matter and as perjury allegations are matter for the court, the Council is of the opinion that this issue should be dealt with via the court process in this instance.

                The Council would like to confirm that the address for service of any legal documents is:

                Tony Maione, Chief Legal Officer
                Legal Services
                North East Lincolnshire Council
                Municipal Offices,
                Grimsby,
                DN31 1HU.

                Yours sincerely

                Tony Maione, Solicitor
                Chief Legal Officer and Monitoring Officer

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Misallocating payments and ignoring email to exploit Magistrates court costs

                  From: outlawlgo
                  To: Hanmer, Peter
                  Cc: Various
                  Sent: Friday, May 13, 2016
                  Subject: Re: False statement to defraud through council tax liability application

                  Dear Mr Hanmer

                  Neither of my emails (see below) have been responded to or acknowledged, however, Tony Maione, North East Lincolnshire Council's Chief Legal and Monitoring Officer, has taken it upon himself to respond on your behalf (see attached) on 11 May 2016.

                  Mr Maione is exploiting the legal proceedings I commenced in order for the council to avoid its duty of investigating the fraud under its own policy. This approach is clearly inappropriate as his function is to ensure the law is complied with in all the authority's decision making. The Council obviously sees his role differently, which in this matter is to bailout the council for committing a criminal offence against one of what are termed customers.

                  Presumably the Council has deliberately delayed its response with the purpose being so it could be certain that the judge, in relation to the information laid, exercised his discretion by not issuing a summons for the purpose of bringing before the court the officer who wrongly stated perjury was not a matter for the police. Notwithstanding that the police and judge have justified their decisions on entirely spurious grounds, the decision to institute proceedings was made before the discovering that the alleged fraud should have been referred by complaints officers immediately to yourself when my formal complaint was submitted, as set out in my April 21 email.

                  This matter has highlighted further concerns about the inconsistency in the way the authority applies its policies, which suggests the taxpayer is being unnecessarily burdened in respect of the resources dedicated for their development and salaries attributed to the team supporting them.

                  I trust now that the council's failure has been highlighted, the procedure can commence in accordance with the 'Fraud Response Plan' as detailed in my April 21 email and as service manager you inform me of the steps being taken to address the matter.

                  Yours sincerely

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Misallocating payments and ignoring email to exploit Magistrates court costs

                    They have some front, but with the police and court looking the other way I suppose you would feel brave. I don't suppose this is anything to worry about is it?

                    __________________________________________________ ____

                    Rossendales
                    Date: 11th May 2016


                    Rossendafes Ltd on behalf of North East lincolnshire Council Revenues & Benefits Service - C Tax - TCE Ref: 550xxxxxxx Rossendales Ref: 28628956

                    All enquiries concerning this document MUST be made to Rossendales Ltd., not North East Lincolnshire Council Revenues & Benefits Service

                    COUNCIL TAX NOTICE OF ISSUE OF LIABILITY ORDER
                    INFORMATION PRELIMINARY TO DISTRESS

                    Following an application made by North East Lincolnshire Council a liability order was issued against you on 30/10/2015 in respect of unpaid Council Tax of £211.00 (including costs).

                    The balance outstanding in respect of the order is £211.00.

                    You must pay this sum IN FULL immediately and direct to Rossendales Ltd., NOT THE COUNCIL.

                    To make immediate payment call our 24 hour automated payment line 0845 078 1194 quoting 28628956

                    Please note that any other amounts you may owe to the Council that are not covered by this liability order need to be paid as previously advised. Details on how to pay the amount shown above are explained on the enclosed leaflet.

                    If you cannot pay in full or dispute the amount due then either write to us at the address above or telephone us on 0844 701 3980 immediately.

                    If payment is not made in full within 14 days from the date of this notice, then distress may be levied upon your possessions. This means that we can list and remove your belongings and sell them at public auction to pay the amount which you owe.

                    If you want us to consider a payment arrangement you must complete the enclosed questionnaire in full, including details of your offer, and send-it to us, NOT THE COUNCIL, within 7 days. If we accept your offer we will write to you to confirm this within 7 days of receiving your offer. If your offer is unacceptable we will visit to levy distress, and you will have to pay extra fees as shown on the enclosed schedule.

                    ROSSENDALES LTD
                    __________________________________________________ ____

                    EDIT: There was no schedule enclosed as referred to in the letter, only an income/expenditure questionnaire and information on different ways to pay.
                    Last edited by outlawlgo; 16th May 2016, 06:20:AM.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Misallocating payments and ignoring email to exploit Magistrates court costs

                      From: outlawlgo
                      To: A.Hobley@coinweb.lgo.org.uk
                      Sent: Monday, May 16, 2016
                      Subject: Re: Confidential: Case ID - 15016673

                      Dear Mr Hobley

                      Complaint Reference 15 020 295

                      I think you should be informed that North East Lincolnshire Council has appointed Rossendales bailiffs to enforce the alleged outstanding Council Tax (see attached letter). The Council has this power only on account of being successful in hoodwinking the judge that it had been a legitimate approach to divert monies intended for the current year's account to another sum which it had agreed in writing was suspended whilst being disputed.

                      Although the schedule of fees referred to in the letter was not enclosed as stated, I believe those fees are likely to amount to £310, comprising a £75 compliance fee and £235 enforcement charge which when added to the unwarranted summons costs will amount to £430 – the sum which I will potentially be out of pocket.

                      If you refer to my complaint 21 March 2016 under the heading "what do you think the body should do to put things right", my prediction has the makings of being very accurate (see quoted paragraph).
                      "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 is not feasible that Rossendales will be successful in recovering any of this from me as the only option available to them is to take control of a vehicle as it is not obligatory to let a bailiff into your home. As I do not currently own a car that option is out. The Council does not have the option of taking monies from my income because I have none whatsoever, only outgoings.

                      I see the only option available, after the likely failure of Rossendales, will be for the Council to apply to the court for committal and will predictably strengthen its case with the argument that I had escalated the matter to the LGO and had an unsuccessful outcome and so claim that the LGO endorsed the council's actions. This would of course be a distortion because my complaint was well founded, and would if the organisation had investigated, found that the council was at fault and my account had been maladministered. It was also in possession of enough evidence within the content of the complaint to have had legitimate cause to raise concerns via the Council’s legal department regarding fraud.

                      In anticipation of having to defend myself in court at a potential committal hearing I request that a letter is produced explaining that the reason why the Ombudsman did not investigate my complaint was not because it lacked merit and would unlikely find fault with the council, but because the organisation has only finite resources and so does not extend to investigating every complaint.

                      Yours sincerely

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Misallocating payments and ignoring email to exploit Magistrates court costs

                        [MENTION=8136]outlawlgo[/MENTION]

                        am on this, just cant say atm, will email you this week deffinatly
                        crazy council ( as in local council,NELC ) as a member of the public, i don't get mad, i get even

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: Misallocating payments and ignoring email to exploit Magistrates court costs

                          Originally posted by outlawlgo View Post
                          Judicial complaint submitted about the judge's conduct for the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office to ignore.

                          Judicial Conduct
                          Investigations Office

                          Complaint form

                          Date form submitted 7 November 2015

                          Background to case


                          North East Lincs Council (the 'Claimant') erroneously applied for a liability order for non-payment of council tax due to misallocating monies to a sum that had arisen from a previous year’s summons costs, which were disputed and appealed to the High Court. That sum was suspended pending the court's decision; therefore no payments in respect of the current liability were ever overdue. The case (High Court) is yet to be determined so the costs still suspended; therefore, under no circumstances was it a sum to which the Claimant could legitimately allocate payment.

                          Myself (the "Defendant") submitted extensive evidence to support that i) the appeal (as alleged) had never been withdrawn and so the suspension of costs from the account never lifted, ii) payments were in any event inferred by the circumstances to be appropriated to the current liability, iii) it was inconceivable that the summons costs as applied on making complaint could have been incurred by the claimant, as per the Claimant’s breakdown.

                          Outlawlgo,


                          Since you started this thread very few people have asked you any questions about the background to your dispute with North East Lincs Council and in fact, this same position is mirrored on other websites.

                          Over the past few months you have been making very serious allegations indeed (some bordering on defamatory) against North East Lincs Council, Humberside Police, the Parliamentary Ombudsman, the Ministry of Justice, Local Government Ombudsman, various Judges etc, etc. The allegations include, perjury, corruption, perverting the course of justice to name but a few.

                          In addition to your posts on this forum, over the past few years you have made hundreds (if not thousands) of Freedom of Information requests to the above agencies and various local authorities in relation to summons costs, liability orders etc, etc.

                          Using one of approx 20 different aliases (more commonly, the username of fFaudwAtch UK) you are also a frequent user of the Freedom of Information website What doThey Know
                          where approx 20% of all daily FOI requests are from you in connection with your dispute regarding North East Lincs Council. Worse still, on 8th May, 40% of all the FOI requests on that site were from you!!!


                          From reading back on your posts on this forum (and indeed CAG) it would seem that since at least 2010, (and possibly even earlier) have defaulted on paying your council tax to North East Lincs Council and this position has led to various Liability Orders being issued. What is very clear indeed is that you are adamant that you will not pay a summons cost when a Liability Order has been issued. It is this one point alone that is the crux of your dispute with North East Lincs Council and all other agencies.

                          In 2012, a Liability Order was granted against you. The summons cost was £70. Your personal opinion was that a 'fair' amount for the summons was just £10. You agreed to pay this sum leaving a balance unpaid of £60. You paid the council tax debt but deliberately left a balance of £60 outstanding (being the 'disputed' summons cost).

                          From memory, in 2013 (but possibly earlier) you indicated that you had appealed this sum (of £60) to the High Court (presumably by way of Judicial Review) and accordingly, (in your opinion at least) North East Lincs Council should not have enforced payment as the sum should be 'suspended' pending the outcome of your High Court case.

                          In 2015, you made payment to NELC in respect of your current council tax debt for the tax year 2014/15 but you instructed the council that you would not permit them to use any of the proceeds to discharge the 'summons costs' of £60. As is always the case, the council allocated £60 from your payments to clear the earlier arrears of £60 (thereby discharging the 'summons costs'). When you realised that NELC had used £60 from your payment to clear the earlier 'summons cost' you deliberately withheld £60 from that years payments in protest.

                          The outcome was predicable (and some would even say, deliberate on your part). Another Liability Order was issued against you in October. It is this Liability Order that has led to you making the recent serious allegations as outlined above.

                          You appear to have your own legal interpretation as to the legality of NELC allocating payment in such a way (discharging the arrears). You have made many FOI requests to other local authorities regarding your 'interpretation' and almost all of them, have rejected your interpretation'. The difference of legal opinion has led you to consider that NELC have 'misallocated' your payment.

                          In relation to the 'misallocation' of payments, your defence (as outlined in the first paragraph of your complaint to the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office) is that the summons costs should have been
                          suspended pending the outcome of your High Court case which you claim, is yet to be determined. North East Lincs defence is that your application to the High Court has been withdrawn.

                          This High Court case that you claim to have made does seem to have dragged on for a very long time indeed.

                          Has the case been withdrawn?

                          Has the case been listed for a hearing?

                          If not, why?


                          PS: Please do not respond by providing a link to any more of your 'Scribed' documents.
                          Last edited by Milo; 17th May 2016, 22:10:PM.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: Misallocating payments and ignoring email to exploit Magistrates court costs

                            And yet more bull$h¡t.


                            From: Maione, Tony
                            To: outlawlgo
                            Cc: Cllr - Jackson, Philip ; Cllr - McGilligan-Fell, Christina ; Cllr - McGilligan-Fell, Christina ; Res - Customer Services ; Marsh, Mary ; Walsh, Rob ; Hanmer, Peter
                            Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2016
                            Subject: RE: False statement to defraud through council tax liability application

                            Dear Mr outlawlgo,

                            Thank you for your email of 13 May 2016 to my colleague Mr Hanmer. I have reviewed the Council’s Whistleblowing (Raising a Concern) Policy (the Policy) in terms of the Council’s response to you on the matters you have raised. The procedure that has been followed in this matter is considered to be in line with the Policy. The policy provides that upon receipt of a potential Whistleblowing matter that it be referred to myself for consideration and discussion with Mr Hanmer, Head of Audit and Assurance and other relevant colleagues. I can confirm that this consideration and discussion duly took place prior to my letter to you of 11 May 2016 and that our Whistleblowing arrangements are subject to regular review.

                            Opportunities to learn from matters raised by members of the public, such as yourself, are taken and accordingly the Audit team are considering your correspondence. The Audit team will consider issues, if any, that haven’t already been dealt with via the Council’s complaints procedure.

                            As your correspondence contained serious allegations including perjury, this matter was passed to me which is standard practice. It is right and proper for you to pursue allegations of this nature through the Courts. You will no doubt appreciate that making allegations including perjury which are found to be unsubstantiated and/or not evidenced is itself a serious matter.

                            Yours sincerely

                            Tony

                            Tony Maione, Solicitor
                            Assistant Director Law and Monitoring Officer
                            North East Lincolnshire Council

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: Misallocating payments and ignoring email to exploit Magistrates court costs

                              Originally posted by Milo View Post
                              Outlawlgo,

                              In relation to the 'misallocation' of payments, your defence (as outlined in the first paragraph of your complaint to the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office) is that the summons costs should have been
                              suspended pending the outcome of your High Court case which you claim, is yet to be determined. North East Lincs defence is that your application to the High Court has been withdrawn.

                              This High Court case that you claim to have made does seem to have dragged on for a very long time indeed.

                              Has the case been withdrawn?

                              Has the case been listed for a hearing?

                              If not, why?


                              PS: Please do not respond by providing a link to any more of your 'Scribed' documents.
                              Outlawlgo

                              Would you mind responding to the above question. Thank you.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: Misallocating payments and ignoring email to exploit Magistrates court costs

                                Post #282 (another thread) and refer backwards from there for context.

                                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