Misallocating payments and ignoring email to exploit Magistrates court costs

[outlawlgo]

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

From: Maione, Tony
To: [outlawlgo]
Cc: [various]
Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2016
Subject: RE: False statement to defraud through council tax liability application

Dear Mr [outlawlgo],

Thank you for your email below.

I can confirm that the Council’s Internal Audit team, led by Mr Hanmer, will be looking into the matters you have raised as laid out in earlier correspondence.

If you believe that the Courts, the police, the Local Government Ombudsman, District Audit or any combination of those, and/or any other external scrutiny should be brought to bear it is of course within your right to pursue that.

Kind regards

Tony

Tony Maione, Solicitor
Chief Legal Officer and Monitoring Officer
North East Lincolnshire Council

[Milo]

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

Is there something you're hinting at but would rather someone else posted?

I'll do it this time but in future fire the gun yourself.

No, I'm quite happy to do my own posting thank you.

With regards to your comment about 'firing the gun myself'.... I have no idea what you are talking about.

Last summer, I read your posts concerning your arrest and in the lead up to you trial in November, I followed the large number of internet posts and Freedom of Information requests that you made to various agencies (Humberside Police, the Crown Prosecution Service, HMCTS to name but a few).

All FOI requests had a common theme. You were blaming others....either for wrongful arrest or even fabricating evidence. It was therefore of huge interest to discover yesterday that you deliberately did not even bother to attend your trial.

I would be interesting to know the reason why.

[outlawlgo]

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

....you have been conducting what can only be described as a 'witch hunt' against the Judge who convicted you (Deputy District Judge Andrew Pascoe)

Is there something you're hinting at but would rather someone else posted?

£52,000 bill for deputy district judge who breached rules 20 times.

I'll do it this time but in future fire the gun yourself.

[Milo]

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

HM Courts
& Tribunals
Service

Our ref: GT
20 May 2016

Dear Mr [outlawlgo],

I write in response to your latest two emails to me, the first sent on 9 May 2016 and the second on 16 May 2016.

With regard to your first email I have already informed you that the court is not prepared to reopen your criminal case. That is because you deliberately chose not to attend your trial.

Frankly I can only describe your comments in respect of dedicated and hard working professionals within Her Majesty’s Courts’ Service as outrageous

Outlawlgo,

Given the astonshing amount of documentation that you have published on the internet regarding your arrest, I am very surprised indeed to read that you did not even bother to attend your trial.

On the WhatdoTheyKnow website you made the following comment a few months ago:

"The arresting officer had no good cause to suspect that the charges originally brought were warranted and the subsequent arrest and imprisonment was unlawful for which Humberside Police should be held to account"

You couln't be bothered to attend your trial and yet, since that time, you have been conducting what can only be described as a 'witch hunt' against the Judge who convicted you (Deputy District Judge Andrew Pascoe) and various police officers involved in your arrest last summer.

What on earth are you playing at?

[outlawlgo]

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

HM Courts
& Tribunals
Service

Our ref: GT
20 May 2016

Dear Mr [outlawlgo],

I write in response to your latest two emails to me, the first sent on 9 May 2016 and the second on 16 May 2016.

With regard to your first email I have already informed you that the court is not prepared to reopen your criminal case. That is because you deliberately chose not to attend your trial.

Frankly I can only describe your comments in respect of dedicated and hard working professionals within Her Majesty’s Courts’ Service as outrageous.

With regard to your second email, that relates simply to an issue of non payment of council tax. Should that matter result ultimately in a court hearing you will be given the opportunity to attend court for an inquiry into your financial circumstances. At such a hearing the court will deal with that issue and that issue alone.

I am unable to help you any further.

Yours sincerely,

Graeme Townell
Legal Team Manager
Grimsby Magistrates’ Court

[outlawlgo]

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

From: [outlawlgo]
To: Maione, Tony
Cc: [various]
Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2016
Subject: Re: False statement to defraud through council tax liability application

Dear Mr Maione

Further to your 18 May email I am trying to establish the council's position in relation to the chart setting out how concerns can be raised (Appendix two, whistleblowing policy). I would therefore like it confirming whether or not your correspondence is effectively the final decision after checks have been made to determine 'if concern falls within the Whistleblowing policy'.

My interpretation of your comments is that you have made the final decision and that decision is no, the consequences being that the matter will be kept from the scrutiny of the police, Local Government Ombudsman and/or the external auditor for example. Rather, the matter will be confined within the council thus enabling a cover-up by one of its bogus internal procedures allowing the department unhindered to pursue the kind of criminal activity that I have been a victim of.

If how I have described above is the correct interpretation, I am in no doubt that the statutory function, which you as Monitoring Officer (a public office holder) have a duty to carry out, is not being fulfilled in the way defined in law.

The role entails specifically ensuring that the Council, its Officers, etc., maintain the highest standards of conduct and reporting on matters that are, or are likely to be, illegal or amount to maladministration.

Unsubstantiated allegations

I assume by emphasising the seriousness of the matter if my allegations were found to be unsubstantiated etc., you are implying a threat. If you have considered the evidence, which I assume you have, you will know that the scenario suggested makes no sense as my evidence supports the allegations beyond all doubt.

Rather than implying that my allegation may be false or malicious the focus ought to be on the council's failure to appoint an officer who is prepared to perform the statutory duties which are conferred on a monitoring officer by virtue of Part III of the Local Government Act 2000.

Failure of Complaints officers to refer matters concerning fraud

There is a serious failure of complaints officers adhering to the Whistleblowing policy in not referring matters immediately concerning fraud to the Audit, Risk, Insurance and Corporate Fraud team. This has been evident in the present case which because of the failure has led to an inordinate amount of injustice. For example, intervention would have rendered the completion of the Corporate Feedback procedure unnecessary, plus saved unnecessarily engaging in lengthy representations to the Local Government Ombudsman.

This matter should have been referred to the Corporate Fraud team in November 2015 further to my correspondence on the 10th alleging that the council fraudulently obtained a liability order from the court in order to enforce a sum which, if it had conducted its affairs lawfully would not be entitled. The same can be said for an earlier submission dated 15 March 2014 concerning a related issue that also led to an inordinate amount of injustice.

In both cases the Chief Executive endorsed the investigating officer's reports, declaring that he had considered the findings of the investigations to have been correctly and fairly carried out and for such acquiescence he should be held accountable.

The council's position

I would like, as set out at the beginning of this email, the council's position clarifying in this matter, e.g., has the council no intention of taking the matter seriously and internally processing it, or has it, or will it be taking the appropriate steps and referring it to the police?

Yours sincerely

[Adamna]

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

Milo,

My understanding is that outlawgo has been abused, and has sought redress by every legal avenue reasonably available to the common person. And not found it. This does not make it a ‘personal grudge’ against ‘various government agencies’, it makes it a person who has done his/her research and gone completely by the book in every instance, and is still thwarted, by various government agencies. They are not alone, except in being diligent to record the entire journey online, which is valuable. The original issue was over a disputed £60, for very good reason and a matter of public interest. They were right to dispute it, I wish more would.


I’m sorry you find it tiresome that it was all done with such extensive diligence, but I for one am grateful, if somewhat depressed at the reality exposed. How are you so certain that there are “approx 20 different aliases”? Why do you care so much even if there are?


I have read much of what outlawgo (as that alias) has put online, and am up to speed that his/her case has not been withdrawn, and the reasons that it has not yet been listed for a hearing lie with the court not responding to state a case (the cause of the (withdrawn) judicial review), and then being mistruthful that it had been, by post, but couldn’t get the address quite right.


This is a person that (as far as I know) is not legally trained, has no profit agenda, but has chosen to apply themselves to serious issues that affect us all, as simple subjects. I call for respect. In bucketloads. Why don’t you have it? What is your agenda?

[Milo]

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

The Local Government Ombudsman chooses to remain complicit:

It has taken me quite some time, but I have now almost finished reading the vast amount of documentation (including your FOI requests) regarding your various allegations of 'perjury, corruption, perverting the course of justice etc etc. Hopefully, I should finish reading the last few documents over the weekend and I will be in a position to post back.

In the meantime, it is becoming abundantly clear from what I have read so far, that your allegations are nothing more than figments of your imagination.

The truth of the matter, is that you have very long standing (since at least 2010) personal grudges against various government agencies with North East Lincs Council being just one of them.

The bottom line is that you are using this forum (and others) for no other purpose than to seek revenge.

[outlawlgo]

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

The Local Government Ombudsman chooses to remain complicit:

From: outlawlgo
To: A.Hobley@coinweb.lgo.org.uk
Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2016
Subject: Re: Confidential: Case ID - 15016673

Dear Mr Hobley

I would like to know whether the Ombudsman raised concerns via North East Lincolnshire Council’s legal department regarding fraud. As I stated in my 16 May email the Ombudsman was in possession of enough evidence within the content of the complaint to have had legitimate cause to.

Yours sincerely

From: A.Hobley@coinweb.lgo.org.uk
To: outlawlgo
Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2016
Subject: Confidential: Case ID - 15020295


19 May 2016

Our ref: 15 020 295
(Please quote our reference when contacting us)

Dear Mr outlawlgo,

You have the decision statement on your case. As we did not investigate we have not..told the Council's legal Department about any alleged fraud.

As a publicly funded body we cannot justify continuing to correspondence about complaints we have decided. You have been told how to ask for a review of the decision on your case. If you do that we will respond to you. We will also reply to any legal action or DPA/FOI requests. Other than that any further correspondence from you about this complaint will be read, but not acknowledged or replied to.

Yours sincerely

Andrew Hobley
Assessment Team Leader
0330 403 4725
LOCAL GOVERNMENT OMBUDSMAN

[outlawlgo]

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

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

[Milo]

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

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.

[outlawlgo]

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

[Milo]

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

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.

[Crazy council]

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

[outlawlgo]

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