Misallocating payments and ignoring email to exploit Magistrates court costs

[Milo]

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

It would seem that it is not only North East Lincolnshire Council that will no longer respond to your endless correspondence.

Only a few weeks ago, the Information Commissioners Office released the following decision regarding your endless correspondence to Humberside Police.

https://ico.org.uk/media/action-weve...fs50649463.pdf

How much your vexatious complaints are costing taxpayers can only be guessed at.

I cannot believe that there there is yet ANOTHER decision regarding you from the Information Commissioners Office:

https://ico.org.uk/media/action-weve...fs50636604.pdf

[outlawlgo]

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

From: "Cllr Ray Oxby (NELC)"
To: outlawlgo
Sent: 13 March 2017 15:16
Attach: mayors coffee morning1.jpg
Subject: Response to email dated 10 March 2017

Dear outlawlgo

Thank you for your email dated 10th March 2017.

I can confirm that North East Lincolnshire Council stands by the action taken and will not be undertaking any further investigation into this matter.

Yours faithfully

Ray Oxby
Leader - North East Lincolnshire Council

From: "Cllr Ray Oxby (NELC)"
To: outlawlgo
Sent: 13 March 2017 15:27
Subject: Recall: Response to email dated 10 March 2017

Cllr Ray Oxby (NELC) would like to recall the message, "Response to email dated 10 March 2017".

The North East Lincolnshire Council, North Lincolnshire Council or Northern Lincolnshire Business Connect email system, including emails and their content, may be monitored for security reasons and to ensure compliance with council policy. Emails and attachments may be recorded for the effective operation of the organisation and for other lawful business purposes.

[outlawlgo]

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

From: outlawlgo
To: Council Leader (NELC)
Cc: MP ; Grimsby Telegraph
Sent: Friday, March 10, 2017
Subject: Re: Letter of Response from Cllr Oxby

Dear Mr Oxby

Re: Council’s Legal Team Manager – Criminal misconduct

You have demonstrated in your 10 March 2017 response exactly why a need exists to continue pursuing matters with North East Lincolnshire Council. The cause is the Council improperly addressing concerns when initially raised. Take away the cause and the need for the Council to be asked to review decisions is also taken away. If the Council's concern is the amount of officer time and cost to the public purse that is incurred, then the solution is in the Council's hands. It simply needs to change its intransigent approach when dealing with customers who have suffered injustice because of official error.

You seem to have been prejudiced by the alleged involvement of the LGO, police etc., or have simply found it useful to exploit in your response. Hiding behind the alleged findings of these organisation's does not alter the fact that the Council has been provided concrete evidence to support why it erroneously pursued recovery through the court. The Council will ultimately have to take responsibility for this. Incidentally your implied threat to take legal action if I continue to seek a just outcome is further proof of council officials routinely abusing their position.

In your capacity as council leader (elected to represent the best interests of residents), I urge you to take responsibility for the injustice which so clearly lies at the hands of the council and ensure that the relevant officer applies to the Magistrates’ court to have the offending order quashed. My recommendation is if you fail to carry out what is reasonably expected of someone in your position you should consider standing down from your public role as council leader.

Yours sincerely

[outlawlgo]

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

Via email:

North East Lincolnshire Council
Municipal Offices
Grimsby
DN31 1HU

10 March 2017

Dear outlawlgo

Thank you for your letter dated 24th February 2017, which I hereby acknowledge.

I am aware that you have made a number of complaints to the Council over the past few years which have been investigated and responded to, as well as numerous freedom of information requests. In addition, the Audit Team undertook a review of your allegations last year under the auspices of the Council's whistleblowing policy and concluded that no evidence of fraudulent activity had taken place.

Furthermore, following receipt of your subsequent complaint letter to me dated 10th August 2016, alleging criminal behaviour by officials at the Council, I referred the matter to the Humberside Constabulary for external investigation. On 19th November 2016, the Police confirmed that they had investigated the allegations and had found no evidence pertaining to dishonesty on behalf of the council or allegations of perjury.

I am also aware that you have also made various complaints to a number of other agencies, including the Local Government Ombudsman, courts and police and they have also found no evidence of wrong-doing.

On that basis, I am satisfied that officers have acted properly with regard to processing your council tax payments based on the information available to them at that time.

North East Lincolnshire Council considers feedback important and where appropriate will seek to identify improvements to the services we provide. I am, however, concerned at the amount of officer time and ultimately cost to the public purse that has been incurred by investigating and responding to your complaints. This officer time could have been put to much better use and I hope you will consider the value of intransigently pursuing a campaign when it has been addressed so many times by many different agencies, all with the same result.

Finally, I also find that the content of your letter is derogatory in the assertions made against officers of the Council and your unreasonably persistent allegations to a range of agencies could be construed as harassment The Council will be considering its position as to whether it takes legal recourse against you if you chose to perpetuate the issue.

Yours sincerely

Councillor Ray Oxby
Leader- North East Lincolnshire Council

[outlawlgo]

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

North East Lincolnshire Council
Municipal Offices
Grimsby
DN31 1HU

24 February 2017

Dear Mr Oxby

Re: Council’s Legal Team Manager – Criminal misconduct

I write further to my letter of 10 August 2016 that concerned allegations of misconduct in public office. I do so because despite having a legal and moral duty the Council has failed to act on new information that has come to light.

It is no longer exclusively a matter of perjured evidence being improperly addressed by the Monitoring and Chief Executive officers. The matter has now taken a new twist, with the discovery of 10 items of post relating to the high court application allegedly sent to me by the Justices’ Clerk for the Humber and South Yorkshire. None of the letters were delivered, though copies dating back to August 2013 have since been obtained. The anomaly of the undelivered post is a separate matter to be investigated, but what is relevant to the council presently is that the new information, regardless of whether the letters were sent or produced afterwards, backs up conclusively that the appeal was never withdrawn.

As the overriding reason for the alleged default was down to the Council’s claim that the appeal had been withdrawn, the Council has a duty to apply to the Magistrates’ court to have the order quashed. To recap, the Council suspended recovery of the sum being appealed in the high court until the case had been determined. However, it wrongly allocated monies to the disputed sum, leaving the balance of the year’s account that should have been reduced in default. The Council allocated monies to the wrong account attributing that decision to believing that the sum was no longer disputed because the appeal had been withdrawn.

Even disregarding (a) the false statement; (b) monies being allocated to the wrong account and (c); summons costs being misrepresented, the Council’s opinion that the liability order was correctly obtained overlooks legislation providing that the council exercise discretion in deciding whether to seek the court’s permission to enforce.

With discretion comes a responsibility to make the decision deemed most appropriate in the circumstances. This course of action, therefore, should not be determined arbitrarily. An obvious factor to consider would be whether pursuing court proceedings would disproportionately increase the financial burden on the taxpayer because of expenditure incurred by the council significantly outweighing alleged sums owed. Complaints for example, especially those which escalate to the Ombudsman (and elsewhere) would in terms of resource expenditure, burden the taxpayer to a far greater extent in cases where sums owed are insignificant and in any event known already to be disputed.

Obviously the council has a duty to the taxpayer to collect arrears, but that cannot mean at any cost. Resorting to legal action in these circumstances would be seen more as a lesson teaching exercise than a proper use of the Magistrates’ court. An officer instituting court proceedings as a retaliatory measure against someone whom the council holds a grudge is not only an abuse of the court system but also a misuse of taxpayer’s money and clearly why the law does not provide the enforcement of debt to be used as a penalty. An officer identified for imposing court costs, bailiff fees and causing the protracted aggravation of having to address the injustice, for the purposes of gaining personal satisfaction, would in a properly run public authority, expect to be criminally investigated.

The gross injustice I’ve been caused is one matter, but what someone must be held accountable for has been the obscene overall cost to the taxpayer. On a personal level, if it can be quantified in monetary terms, the cost (including potential loss of earnings) if aggregated over the years for the gross inconvenience of having to deal with the negligence, maladministration, and criminal actions of the Council would amount to hundreds of thousands of pounds. However, if all the public authorities which it has been necessary to involve were factored in it would increase the burden on the taxpayer tenfold. The following list of public authorities have all been involved as a direct consequence of the Council’s blind pursuit of monies it is not entitled to:

Continued.....

[spirit2534]

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

Thanks. That's useful to know. The document is signed (and states who the witness is) on the original. Personal details have been redacted.

There is however, a very serious concern raised by the content which I believe could implicate the council on a matter of perjury.

- - - Updated - - -



A judge is on this case.

Judges are human, at least they claim to be, but certainly not infaliable.

[Milo]

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

From: Res - Customer Services
To: outlawlgo
Cc: local government ombudsman ; Humberside police ; Information commissioner
Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2017
Subject: RE: Application to magistrates' court to quash liability order

Dear outlawlgo

I refer you to the response provided to you on 26th January 2017 confirming that North East Lincolnshire Council will not be undertaking any further investigation into this matter. For clarity, no further acknowledgement or response will be provided to any correspondence of a similar nature regarding the same issues.

Yours sincerely on behalf of North East Lincolnshire Council

Eve Richardson-Smith LLB

Legal Team Manager & Deputy Monitoring Officer

It would seem that it is not only North East Lincolnshire Council that will no longer respond to your endless correspondence.

Only a few weeks ago, the Information Commissioners Office released the following decision regarding your endless correspondence to Humberside Police.

https://ico.org.uk/media/action-weve...fs50649463.pdf

[outlawlgo]

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

From: Res - Customer Services
To: outlawlgo
Cc: local government ombudsman ; Humberside police ; Information commissioner
Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2017
Subject: RE: Application to magistrates' court to quash liability order

Dear outlawlgo

I refer you to the response provided to you on 26th January 2017 confirming that North East Lincolnshire Council will not be undertaking any further investigation into this matter. For clarity, no further acknowledgement or response will be provided to any correspondence of a similar nature regarding the same issues.

Yours sincerely on behalf of North East Lincolnshire Council

Eve Richardson-Smith LLB

Legal Team Manager & Deputy Monitoring Officer

[outlawlgo]

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

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

Dear Eve Richardson Smith

Stage 2 independent review

Your response is entirely unsatisfactory. Firstly I have not asked the Council to undertake an investigation on account of one being unnecessary, and secondly, there is nothing to support the Council's decision.

The council has been provided overwhelming evidence that it pursued Council Tax recovery through the Magistrates' court when it shouldn't have.

The simplest way to remedy this is for the Council to apply to the court to have the liability order quashed.

I understand that an application to the court under regulation 36A of the Council Tax Regulations can only be made by the local authority. However, that doesn't warrant the authority using its discretion irresponsibly where there is no dispute about the facts. If the person with overall responsibility for this decision continues to leave the matter unresolved (knowing the serious consequences) then there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the person is unfit for public office.

Yours sincerely

outlawlgo

[outlawlgo]

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

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

Dear outlawlgo

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

Yours sincerely on behalf of North East Lincolnshire Council


Eve Richardson-Smith LLB

Legal Team Manager & Deputy Monitoring Officer

[Adamna]

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

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

[outlawlgo]

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

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


Dear Mr Maione

Re: Application to magistrates' court to quash liability order

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Yours sincerely

ANNEX A

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

"Liability order

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

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

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

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

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

[outlawlgo]

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

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

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

In accordance with internal procedure, firstly accounts are reviewed to determine

• If the customer has indicated where the payment is intended

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

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

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

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

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

[outlawlgo]

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

Complaint sent to MP on 15 November 2016 for referral to Parliamentary Ombudsman.

Please note the following Parliamentary Ombudsman Decision Letter is contrived.

9 December 2016

Your complaint about HM Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS)

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

Your complaint

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

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

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

Our role

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

Our decision and reasons

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

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

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

Other organisations complained about

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

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

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

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

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

Summary

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

[outlawlgo]

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

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

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

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

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

With effect from 10 October 2016 payments are allocated as follows:

• Payments received that exactly match an instalment are automatically allocated to the year the instalment relates to.

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

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

Prior to 10 October 2016, payments that did not exactly match an instalment and were not received to settle a particular Liability Order were allocated to the oldest debt first.

It would be interesting to know why Southwark have recently changed its stance and if there will be more to follow.