• 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.
  • LegalBeagles® is a free forum, founded in May 2007, providing legal guidance and support to consumers and SME's across a range of legal areas.

    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
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

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

    Hi @outlawlgo

    Did you ever get to the bottom of the 'where did Form A, (or it's replacement), go' issue?

    (Re Liability Orders)
    CAVEAT LECTOR

    This is only my opinion - "
    Opinions are made to be changed --or how is truth to be got at?" (Byron)

    You and I do not see things as they are. We see things as we are.
    Cohen, Herb

    There is danger when a man throws his tongue into high gear before he
    gets his brain a-going.
    Phelps, C. C.

    "They couldn't hit an elephant at this distance!"
    The last words of John Sedgwick

    Comment


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

      Originally posted by charitynjw View Post
      Hi @outlawlgo

      Did you ever get to the bottom of the 'where did Form A, (or it's replacement), go' issue?

      (Re Liability Orders)
      Just looked at a thread I contributed on regarding this subject ( Who produces a liability order ) and haven't come across any further information regarding the standardised form which was supposed to replace the de-prescribed ones, A & B.

      However, the provision for a Liability Order to deal either with a single person or more than one person was not affected by the amendment which de-prescribed the forms.

      As far as I'm aware the current regulations state as follows:

      A single liability order may deal with one person and one such amount (or aggregate amount) as is mentioned in regulation 34(7) and (8), or, if the court thinks fit, may deal with more than one person and more than one such amount.

      Comment


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

        From 21 March 2016, Complaint to LGO

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

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

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

        Comment


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

          Another outcome to another 'sham' complaint's procedure:

          Julie Collins
          Courts and Tribunals Manager,
          Humber & South Yorkshire
          Grimsby Magistrates' Court
          Victoria Street
          Grimsby
          14th September 2016
          Dear outlawlgo

          Re: Complaint Letter dated 11 August 2016

          I have now had the opportunity to read through the documentation you have sent to the Customer Services department, including the additional pages sent on 5 September 2016.

          The two main matters you complain about are the decision of the court to issue a liability order against you in council tax enforcement proceedings and the decision of the court to convict you of a public order offence.

          While I can understand your frustration I am unable to intervene in or change the outcome of your cases. This is because judicial decisions have been made and judges are independent of the administration of HM Courts and Tribunals Service. If you consider the decisions to be wrong then you should consider appealing the decisions. If you are aggrieved by the way the judge has behaved towards you can lodge a complaint with the relevant office.

          You are clearly already aware of these avenues as you mention in your correspondence to North East Lincolnshire Council in October 2015 that you have appealed a previous decision to issue a liability order against you. You also made a complaint about the District Judge to the Judicial Complaints Investigations Office in November 2015.

          In respect of your conviction at this court on 15 December 2015 you were told that you could appeal to the Crown Court and you were clearly informed about the time limits for that appeal.

          You chose not to attend court for your trial on 15 December 2015, saying in effect that you did not consider District Judge Curtis to be a fit and proper person to hear your trial and that the court as a whole should be investigated for complicity in defrauding the public. It was because of this that the court felt that it was not appropriate to reopen your case under section 142 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980.

          [SECURITY CLASSIFICATION]
          You submitted your appeal against conviction in April 2016 but your application to appeal out of time was refused by the Crown Court judge. I cannot comment on that as once again that was a decision made by a judge.

          The court set up a hearing for you to attend to apply to take out a private prosecution against a member of the police force but you decided not to attend and the matter was dealt with by a Deputy District Judge in your absence.

          Much of your documentation concerns complaints made to both the police and North East Lincolnshire Council and I am not able to comment on that.

          In conclusion having considered your complaint I do not accept that the court has failed to address the issues you have raised in the past. I do not accept that the court has, in your words, 'fobbed off' criminal accusations made by you against both the court and the District Judge. The court has informed you of the different routes of appeal and responded to your queries to the best of its ability.

          If you are not content with this response you can escalate your complaint to my line manager, Mrs Jodie Morris.

          Yours sincerely,


          Graeme Townell
          Legal Team Manager
          Grimsby Magistrates' Court

          Comment


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

            Originally posted by outlawlgo View Post

            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.

            Comment


            • 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

              Comment


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

                Hi
                [MENTION=8136]outlawlgo[/MENTION] Just for your info, " of the people your dealing with are straight, ( ie not involved or complacent )

                Graham Townie , hes quite a polite chap, caught up in whats going on but not involved or a facilitator,,

                Judge Curtis, He only started here in 2009, he actually replaced one of the weirdo's, hes a tough judge, but again, not involved, and doesn't know about how CTY and NNDR accounts were processed prior 2010.

                wrereas, If you can get an answer from

                Mr Fumble ( not quite his name but appropriate ) head of majistrates
                Mr Weasel ... Clark
                The woman manager ( dont wish to name her atm )

                That would be interesting, becuase what your dealing with, is directly in there remit.. and there job to make sure the courts not being used like that.
                crazy council ( as in local council,NELC ) as a member of the public, i don't get mad, i get even

                Comment


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

                  Another unfortunate victim of North East Lincolnshire Council.

                  Rossendales demand £1,463.26 where no debt exists.

                  Comment


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

                    Originally posted by outlawlgo View Post
                    Another unfortunate victim of North East Lincolnshire Council.

                    Rossendales demand £1,463.26 where no debt exists.
                    The council spokesperson gave such a useless and unhelpful response.
                    "Usually in cases like this the customer would be advised to contact the bailiff directly."
                    Engage with bailiffs? I don't think so.
                    "We changed the way we deal with council tax enquiries in July this year and customer services staff no longer have access to people's accounts or claim information."
                    Customer services no longer serve customers. I'm sure they charge for them in summons costs though.
                    "We do make appointments for people in complex cases or where a customer is considered vulnerable."
                    They made the simple case complex, and they didn't make an appointment.
                    "It is a legal requirement for people to let us know about changes in circumstances, such as a change of address, and this can also be done online."
                    I think the poor soul did let them know. Correction, can only be done online, it seems.

                    Dystopia at its finest.

                    Comment


                    • 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

                      Comment


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

                        Originally posted by outlawlgo View Post
                        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

                        Comment


                        • 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

                          Comment


                          • 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
                            Last edited by Milo; 1st November 2016, 11:42:AM.

                            Comment


                            • 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

                              Comment


                              • 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.

                                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.

                                Announcement

                                Collapse
                                No announcement yet.

                                Court Claim ?

                                Guides and Letters
                                Loading...

                                upgrade to vip

                                Want exclusive access to forums, more privacy and a live chat box? Upgrade to become a bigger part of our community.

                                only £15/yr

                                Offers available. No subscription traps.

                                sign up now



                                Search and Compare fixed fee legal services and find a solicitor near you.

                                Find a Law Firm


                                Working...
                                X