Misallocating payments and ignoring email to exploit Magistrates court costs

[outlawlgo]

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

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

[outlawlgo],

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

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

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

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

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

Christine

Detective Chief Superintendent Christine Wilson
Head of Specialist Crime Command

[outlawlgo]

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

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

Dear Ms Wilson

Re: Investigation into misconduct in public office

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yours sincerely

[outlawlgo]

[outlawlgo]

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

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

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

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

[Adamna]

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

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

[outlawlgo]

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

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

A reply dated 11 August is obviously another fob-off letter..... ( 11 August 2016 Council Leader - Redact )

The leader of the Council replied on 11 August..... ( 11 August 2016 Council Leader - Redact )

Our ref: RO/seh/0193

11 August 2016

Dear outlawlgo

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

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

Yours sincerely

Ray Oxby
Leader of North East Lincolnshire Council

Municipal Offices, Town Hall Square, Grimsby, North East Lincolnshire DN31 1HU
Telephone (01472) 325905
Email : ray.oxby@nelincs.gov.uk

Humberside police have dealt with the matter as professionally as ever. Evidently not even bothering to provide anything to support its decision. No more than 10 minutes could have been dedicated to the investigation which was the amount of time it must have taken to draft its billshot letter.

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

19 November 2016

Dear [outlawlgo]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yours sincerely

Christine Wilson

Detective Chief Superintendent
Head of Crime

[Crazy council]

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

[MENTION=8136]outlawlgo[/MENTION]

some big news on this, will try email you the details over the weekend.

[outlawlgo]

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

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

Yours sincerely


Richard Redgrave
Head of Customer Investigations

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

[outlawlgo]

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

Without explanation, a sum has been deducted from the overall amount outstanding on my Council Tax account (not paid by me). The observation that the balance had been reduced by £91 was made on 7 September 2016. The council seems to have oddly credited an amount which I'm not disputing.

Again, without explanation, my account has been meddled with. This time a sum has been added to the overall amount outstanding on my Council Tax account. The council seems to have taken back the £91 it credited last week.

As North East Lincolnshire Council has admitted to monitoring this thread it must have learned about its error from a previous post.

@Crazy council could have the answer to this. The council's explanation sounds a bit far fetched.

===========

North East Lincolnshire Council
Finance Department

22 October 2016

Dear Sir/Madam

Re: Council tax Ref: 550xxxxxxx – Formal Complaint

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

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

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

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

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


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


Yours sincerely

8 November 2016

Private and Confidential

Dear [outlawlgo]

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

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

Complaint 1: Summary of complaint

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

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

Outcome:

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

Complaint 2: Summary of complaint

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

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

Outcome:

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

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

Yours sincerely

North East Lincolnshire

[outlawlgo]

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

The 'go to' advice is always to seek this magical legal advice. In other words, go to one of our club members to charge you to tell you why the system doesn't work. Or the Ombudsman who will tell you, after much delay, that it's not in 'her remit' either. Regardless, you have no chips in our game. Out of the casino with you.

I'm convinced there's a formula followed by every public body that deals with complaints which basically involves singling out one or two elements which it can associate with matters out of its remit and addressing none of the concerns that are within jurisdiction. When it's escalated, the person next dealing with it only looks at what the first person highlighted and this goes on and on until the only option is risking your home in the casino justice system.

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

[Adamna]

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

The 'go to' advice is always to seek this magical legal advice. In other words, go to one of our club members to charge you to tell you why the system doesn't work. Or the Ombudsman who will tell you, after much delay, that it's not in 'her remit' either. Regardless, you have no chips in our game. Out of the casino with you.

[outlawlgo]

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

HM Courts & Tribunals Service Customer Investigations Team's final, appeal stage of the complaints process:

HM Courts & Tribunals Service
Customer Investigations Team
Post Point 10.34
102 Petty France
London
SW1H 9AJ

Email:
ComplaintsCorres&LT@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk

2 November 2016

Our ref: 00034/165/1617

Dear [outlawlgo]

Grimsby Magistrates' Court

Thank you for your email of 21 October about the handling of your cases by the Grimsby Magistrates' Court. I am sorry that you remain dissatisfied with the previous replies you have received. I am replying at the final, appeal stage of the complaints process.

I have reviewed the previous responses from Mr Townell and Mrs Morris and having done so I am satisfied that your complaint has been responded to appropriately. While I appreciate your strength of feeling about the decisions reached in your cases, it is not possible to challenge a judicial decision, for whatever reason, through the HM Courts & Tribunals Service complaints process. The only way to challenge a judge's decision is by making the appropriate application or appeal.

I am sorry that your application to reopen your case was refused but, as this was not an administrative function, I do not propose to comment further.

I am sorry that you feel the service you received was not a good one. However, I have found no evidence of maladministration, that is, a staff administrative error which has affected either of your court cases. If you believe that you have experienced an injustice, I would suggest that consider seeking legal advice to discuss the matter.

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

Yours sincerely


Richard Redgrave
Head of Customer Investigations

[Milo]

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

The very popular Freedom of Information website, What Do They Know has posted the following message on their website regarding the behaviour of Outlawlgo:

This user has been banned from WhatDoTheyKnow


They have been given the following explanation:


You have continued to use our service to make potentially defamatory allegations, despite repeated warnings.

PS: On their website, Outlawlgo is known as fFaudwAtch

[outlawlgo]

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

From: outlawlgo
To: HMCTS Customer Service (Correspondence)
Sent: Friday, October 21, 2016
Attach: Legal team manager 14 Sept 16.pdf | HMCTS second stage 18 Oct 16.pdf
Subject: Fw: Grimsby Magistrates' court Complaint - 11 August 2016

Dear Sir/Madam

Re: Grimsby Magistrates' court Complaint - 11 August 2016

I am escalating my complaint to Customer Service Team as I consider the review of Mr Townell's response has been improperly conducted. The bias, which was anticipated with an employee having to scrutinise a colleague is blatant, and consider that until the issues are escalated to a truly independent body if one exists, it is unlikely the any of the concerns raised will be dealt with objectively.

It is also sensed from the review that there has been no or little effort put into understanding the points raised. Simply defending the court on the basis that it responded to the numerous concerns raised has no significance if the information provided mainly obstructed a resolution; and when challenged, a request to back up its claim with a statement of truth was ignored (re, Court Associate sitting with D.D Judge Andrew Pascoe, page 347 of complaint).

Evidently, the matter regarding the decision not to re-open the case under section 142 of the Magistrates Courts Act 1980 has been improperly addressed, as the reviewing manager implies that a judge had made a ruling which could only be challenged in the High Court therefore the decision out of the court's remit. If the complaint had been properly considered rather than making assumptions the reviewing manager would have known from the responses that the court refused to allow the case to be re-opened. The judicial decision related to the appeal to the crown court that was refused by circuit judge Mark Bury on the spurious grounds that I deliberately absented myself from trial and put forward no adequate reason for the appeal being out of time.

In order to put the matter in perspective, the appeal to the Crown court was out of time because of the many weeks spent corresponding with the Magistrates' court and providing extensive evidence to support why it would be appropriate to re-open the case under section 142. Representations contained in the application also justified why the trial was not attended.

It is sensed throug reading the review that HMCTS endorses spurious decision making by the judiciary with the justification being that a person aggrieved by incompetence has the right of appeal via the High Court. It is of course grossly unreasonable to expect someone to expose themselves to the risk of catastrophic financial loss, especially on account of judges misconducting themselves. Contrary to the cavalier attitude to litigation this would seem disingenuous as in another context the Justices' Clerk for Humber & South Yorkshire expresses regard for the Administrative Court's time and public money by limiting to one application what would have been a case stated and judicial review by delivering a draft case without a need to enter into a recognizance (see below "court's track record").

In any event, the court manager suggesting civil litigation is pursued in the high Court is irrelevant when all matters have involved criminal allegations.

When you consider this court's track record when a matter is pursued this way, I am approaching four years being grossly inconvenience by the Court obstructing the progress of an application to state a case for an appeal to the high court in the matter of North East Lincolnshire Council's application for a council tax liability order. It would not be reasonable to expect anyone engage in an appeal where the involvement of Grimsby Magistrates’ Court has to be relied upon.

It has not gone unnoticed that the reviewing manager has for an easy life relied on the outcomes of the bogus judicial watchdog organisations like the Judicial Conduct and Investigations Office, for the court not taking responsibility for addressing allegations of fraud, perjury etc. Court managers are surely aware that organisations like these are positioned at the taxpayer's expense merely to give the impression that holders of judicial office are accountable. Judges and judicial ombudsmen are not remunerated with six figure salaries so they can offer a system which serves the public and will make their decisions accordingly to toe the government line. The evidence proving the case against the council is indisputable (pages 144-163 of complaint) yet this is apparently irrelevant to the complaint because of the corrupt judicial decisions.

Yours sincerely

outlawlgo

[outlawlgo]

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

From: outlawlgo
To: jodie.morris@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
Sent: 19 September 2016
Attach: Legal team manager 14 Sept 16.pdf
Subject: Grimsby Magistrates' court Complaint - 11 August 2016

Dear Mrs Morris,

Re: Grimsby Magistrates' court Complaint - 11 August 2016

I am escalating my complaint to you as I consider that Mr Townell has failed to address the points raised objectively and focussed on elements he has been able to claim HMCTS has no remit to intervene.

The response (attached) is little more than a chronology of some carefully chosen issues raised in my complaint which also functions to misrepresent my concerns to be matters relating to judicial decisions as opposed the administration of HMCTS.

Documentation concerning complaints made to the police, Council etc. etc., have been included to give the fullest account of the failings and the degree to which I have been affected as a direct result of the court's failure to take seriously the allegations of perjury, fraud etc., which would have been avoided had someone taken responsibility.

There would be little advantage in going through all the issues which haven't been considered in the response as I would in effect simply be re-submitting the same complaint in another form.

The only new information I have as a result of the complaint is the Magistrates' court's reasons for not reopening the case under section 142 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980. The response informs me that the reason was because I had expressed that I didn't consider District Judge Curtis to be a fit and proper person to hear the trial and that the court as a whole should be investigated for complicity in defrauding the public, not as I had been previously informed, simply because I deliberately chose not to attend the trial.

These accusations were not trivial and indicate that the court has been negligent in both failing to reopen the case for reasons put forward in my representations and not considering it appropriate to refer the matter to the police.

I believe at this stage of the complaints procedure HMCTS aims to reply within 10 working days.

Yours sincerely

The review from the Acting Legal Team Manager South Yorkshire and Humber, Second stage 18 October 2016:


Mrs A Watts
Justices' Clerk for
Humber & South Yorkshire
Doncaster Justice Centre South
College Road
Doncaster
DN13HS

Our ref: 00034/165/1617

18th October 2016

Subject:- Complaint Review dated 19 September 2016

Dear outlawlgo

Thank you for your email dated 19 September 2016. I am sorry that you are not satisfied with the response to your initial complaint and felt it necessary to escalate this matter. I apologise for the delay in responding, it has taken me some time to review all of the information you provided and make the further necessary enquiries. I have now had the opportunity to consider all of the documentation you have submitted to the Court in relation to your complaint and request for a review.

You state in your initial letter dated 11 August 2016 that your complaint regarded two separate but related matters; proceedings in which a Council Tax Liability Order was made and proceedings related to a Public Order Offence.

As per Mr Townell's response, the making of the Liability Order was a judicial decision and not one that we are able to intervene in. This is also the position in relation to your conviction and sentencefor a public order offence. The evidence placed before the Court was considered by the Judge and the decisions were made. You were advised on more than one occasion of the appeal routes available to you and it is evident from within the documentation you have provided that you have explored these avenues. This also includes the decision not to re-open your case under section 142 of the Magistrates Courts Act 1980, again this is a judicial decision and not something that can be overturned by this Court - the correct route of appeal would be by way of Judicial Review.

I acknowledge that your complaint does not relate solely to the judicial decisions made but also to the conduct of the Judiciary involved in the decision making, responses to correspondence you submitted to the Court and the allegation you make that the Court has not taken seriously the allegations of fraud, perjury etc.

I am satisfied that you were made aware of the right to complain to the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office in relation to the conduct of the members of the Judiciary that you allege, a route which I note that you followed.

[SECURITY CLASSIFICATION]

I am also satisfied that the Court has taken all necessary steps to respond to the numerous concerns you have raised over a significant period of time by providing you with the information you have required on many occasions, this is also evident from the documentation you provide.

The Court takes seriously all allegations of fraud and perjury. The evidence you refer to has been before the Court in different forms and in some instances has formed part of the evidence on which the decisions, discussed above, were made. You also made an application to lay an information relating to the allegations you make which was refused by Deputy District Judge Hayles. Full reasons for his decision were made and provided to you. This is again a judicial decision that this Court can not interfere with, the correct route of appeal is by way of Judicial Review.

It is unfortunate that you are unhappy with Mr Townell's response but I am satisfied for all the reasons mentioned above that he did address all of the points raised; these being issues that this Court cannot further intervene with.

Should you wish to escalate this matter further you complaint should be directed to:

Customer Service Team
10th Floor (10:34)
102 Petty France
London
SW1 H 9AJ


Yours Sincerely


Mrs Jodie Morris
Acting Legal Team Manager
South Yorkshire and Humber

[outlawlgo]

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

This 'Internal staff guidance on local taxation' is a good indication why the Local Government Ombudsman dismissed the concerns and never investigated the complaint, all but for the fact that the guidance was apparently produced after it was rejected.


Internal staff guidance on local taxation

Section 7 – Common faults that result in complaints to authorities and to us

Payment allocation

The allocation of payments can give rise to problems, especially when there are arrears or summonsed debt.

Council officers do not watch each account and decide where each payment will go. The computer system will allocate it, according to some simple rules. Usually payments which are exactly equal to instalments or exact multiples of instalments will be allocated to the current instalment debt. After a summons is issued the computer may then allocate instalment payments to any arrears – as the right to pay by instalments is been lost once a final notice has been issued.

You will need to establish what system the council uses, how it decided which payments went where and how the taxpayer was told.

In Tower Hamlets LBC v J A and H C Fallows (1989) C A (RA 1990) 255 Mrs Fallows made a cash payment to the Tower Hamlets cashiers. She did not get a receipt. The payment was not credited to the rates account. A police and Council investigation found no evidence of wrongdoing, it also did not find the money. Tower Hamlets asked the magistrates’ court for a Liability Order. The court declined to issue one. The council appealed. The appeal court found that the burden of proof was on the council to show the rates had not been paid. In deciding on the balance of probabilities the magistrates had not erred. The evidence given by the council had shifted the evidential burden of proof to the ratepayer, she had given evidence at that point and discharged the evidential burden of proof placed upon her.

Legally taxpayers should pay as billed, so the council does not need to say how any ‘odd’ payments may be allocated. But if the taxpayer has specified, preferably in writing, where they want payments to go, and the council has agreed, then there should be some mechanism in place to ensure this happens.


August 2016