Misallocating payments and ignoring email to exploit Magistrates court costs

[Openlaw15]

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

Draft Decision

Local Govermnent
OMBUDSMAN

11 April 2016

Complaint reference:
15 020 295

Complaint against:
North East Lincolnshire Council


The Ombudsman’s draft decision

Summary: The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint that the Council allocated council tax payments to the wrong account. The courts are better placed to deal with this matter.
__________________________________________________ ______

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to here as Mr B, has complained the Council has allocated council tax payments to the wrong account.


The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman provides a free service, but must use public money carefully. She may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if, for example, she believes another body is better placed to deal with the matter. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered what Mr B said in his complaint.


What I found

4. Mr B says he made payments to his council tax account for 2015/16 but the Council allocated these to the account for an earlier year. He says the Council did not follow the law when doing this.


5. Because the Council believed Mr B had not made the required payments for 2015/16, it applied to the magistrates’ court for a liability order.


Draft decision

6. Mr B believes the Council’s actions are wrong in law. The Ombudsman cannot decide the law, only the courts can do that. My current view is that Mr B could have put any arguments about the Council’s actions to the magistrates’ court which was better placed to deal with this matter. For this reason, the Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint.

Investigator’s draft decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

The Ombudsman has the power to investigate but seemingly is choosing not to. Is this an abuse of discretionary powers?

[outlawlgo]

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

Draft Decision

Local Govermnent
OMBUDSMAN

11 April 2016

Complaint reference:
15 020 295

Complaint against:
North East Lincolnshire Council


The Ombudsman’s draft decision

Summary: The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint that the Council allocated council tax payments to the wrong account. The courts are better placed to deal with this matter.
__________________________________________________ ______

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to here as Mr B, has complained the Council has allocated council tax payments to the wrong account.


The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman provides a free service, but must use public money carefully. She may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if, for example, she believes another body is better placed to deal with the matter. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered what Mr B said in his complaint.


What I found

4. Mr B says he made payments to his council tax account for 2015/16 but the Council allocated these to the account for an earlier year. He says the Council did not follow the law when doing this.


5. Because the Council believed Mr B had not made the required payments for 2015/16, it applied to the magistrates’ court for a liability order.


Draft decision

6. Mr B believes the Council’s actions are wrong in law. The Ombudsman cannot decide the law, only the courts can do that. My current view is that Mr B could have put any arguments about the Council’s actions to the magistrates’ court which was better placed to deal with this matter. For this reason, the Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint.

Investigator’s draft decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

[outlawlgo]

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

Local Govermnent
OMBUDSMAN

11 April 2016


Mr outlawlgo

Our ref: 15 020 295
(Please quote our reference when contacting us and, if using email, put the number in the email subject line)

Contact Chris Upjohn on 0330 403 4676 or by email to c.upjohn@coinweb.lgo.org.uk

Dear Mr outlawlgo

Complaint against North East Lincolnshire Council

The Ombudsman has asked me to assess your complaint to see if it is about a matter we can or should investigate. Based on the information I have, my current view is that we should not investigate your complaint. The enclosed draft decision explains how and why I have reached this view.

Before I make a final decision, I should welcome your comments on what I say in the draft decision. If you do wish to comment, please ensure that I receive your response by 20 April 2016.

If I have heard nothing by then, I will likely make a formal decision not to investigate your complaint for the reasons explained in the draft decision. If you need more time to comment, please explain why this is and I will consider your request.

You will see that I have referred to you as ‘Mr B’ in the statement. This is because we have a commitment to publish all of our decisions on our website if possible. If you consider that publication of the decision will identify you, please explain why this is and we will consider whether to make an exception to our normal policy.


Yours sincerely


Chris Upjohn
Investigator, Assessment Team

[outlawlgo]

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

COMPLAINT TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT OMBUDSMAN
(Part III of the Local Government Act 1974)

AGAINST
NORTH EAST LINCOLNSHIRE COUNCIL

21 March 2016

List of Annexes:

Annex A: Council’s 14 March 2016 final response
Annex B: 10 November 2015 email query to Council
Annex C: 17 December 2015 formal complaint letter to Council
Annex D: Council’s 21 December 2015 cover letter
Annex E: Council’s 13 November 2015 response [see above Annex D]
Annex F: 25 December 2015 second formal complaint letter to Council
Annex G: Council’s 19 January 2016 first stage formal complaint response
Annex H: 26 January 2016 third formal complaint letter to Council


WHAT DO YOU THINK THE BODY DID WRONG?

The complaint surrounds North East Lincolnshire Council (the “Council”) engineering default in circumstances where payments were made in sufficient amount to meet the legal obligation I was under to pay the sums set out on the demand notice relating to my 2015/16 Council Tax liability.

The Council misallocated payments to a previous year’s balance, thus leaving a shortfall in respect of the current year’s account (that which the payment was intended). The presumed cause being that an instalment was met from two transactions, and with neither payment matching the instalment amount set for the current council tax year the system automatically posted it to the oldest balance. Payment however at least covered the amount owed at all times and was for part of the period in credit.

The Council’s right to appropriate payment did not arise on account of the transaction not matching an instalment amount (not if doing so put the current year's liability in arrears). According to established appropriation laws, a debtor’s election may take an implied form, as well as expressed. Therefore, where payment is unspecified, it would be implied that the payment was intended for the account most beneficial to the debtor to reduce, which would clearly be the current year's, if allocating monies to another balance would put the current year’s account in arrears.

R v Miskin Lower Justices (1953) held that where an amount so obviously relates to a specific liability, it would be an unwarranted assumption to allocate the payment elsewhere. Billing Authorities are able to set parameters in their revenue system so when payment amounts are not recognised, monies are allocated to the current year. The anomalies caused by automation are largely eliminated because of this since it ensures debtors do not incur additional costs through subsequent recovery applications. This is in agreement with the judgment in R v Miskin Lower justices, as it would be an unwarranted assumption to allocate monies to a sum in arrears if it is likely to also put the current year's liability in arrears.

Note:

A process that relies on automation such as the council tax payments system, will inevitably present a flexibility–efficiency tradeoff. Having the system set so unmatched payments are posted to the most recent account has to achieve greater compliance with the general principles which allow for implied payments, simply because the authority could not reasonably assume that the debtor would elect the oldest balance, knowing his current due payment was deficient and incur further expense. This approach would, for reasons self-evident, require less manual adjustment with respect to reallocating unmatched payments rendering the automated aspect of the process more compliant with the judgment in R v Miskin Lower justices.

It is apparently standard practice, whichever way their systems are set, for billing authorities to regularly check unmatched payments to ascertain which account payment is intended, if there are arrears outstanding. However, what fundamentally matters (after initial payment allocation) is for the appropriation of those unmatched to the current year's liability if allocating payment to the oldest debt would put the current year's liability also in arrears.


Balance suspended from enforcement

The balance to which monies were misallocated by the council was in any event suspended from enforcement. Therefore, notwithstanding that the council’s right to appropriate payment did not arise, even if it had for whatever reason, it should have become immediately obvious from the account notes that the sum was subject to court proceedings. As there has been no outcome yet to the proceedings the suspension has not been lifted and the sum remains suspended. It was clear from my current council tax bill alone that the suspension had not been lifted as it was itemised separately and described as a sum ‘subject to court proceedings’. The relevant part of the council tax bill states under the header ‘Memorandum Note’ as follows:

“Your instalments for 2015/16 do not include your 2014/15 account balance

As at 27-FEB-2015 your 2014/15 Council Tax account balance is 60.00

60.00 of the total is subject to court proceedings”

Linking matter of complaint to court proceedings

The Council has refused to address the complaint with the justification being that it raises matters about a Liability Order and so falls outside the scope of the complaints process.

It has been reiterated over the course of the complaint that the matter concerns payment misallocation. The council has taken it upon itself to redefine the matter so it appears to concern court proceedings for the obvious reason that it can deny me the opportunity of a just outcome to the formal complaint. Moreover, there is evidence this has been done in anticipating that the matter will be escalated to the LGO in the hope that its handiwork will fall in the hands of an acquiescent officer assigned to preliminary assess the complaint.

The summons charge, to which no further sum is added on being granted the liability order, was applied to my account on or around the 15 September 2015, approximately two weeks before the application for a liability order was made to the Magistrates court. Therefore, the summons charge, which the council is claiming to be the matter of complaint, even if it was, concerned solely its actions, as the court has no jurisdiction over costs until the case is brought before the court.


Other matters

It would be negligent if I omitted to point out the disingenuous claim by the council which implies that its failure in responding within a reasonable time-frame is a rarity. I have from the same department had to wait four weeks for a reply in relation to a previous matter and even after the council had made the claim in its first stage response, the final response exceeded its own deadline by a week.

The matter regarding my election for all payments to be allocated to the current year's liability, whether or not a sum matches an instalment amount, which was improperly addressed in the first stage response (and contended), was entirely ignored in the final response.


HOW HAS THIS AFFECTED YOU?

The error has caused the inconvenience of having to dispute the council's actions and the subsequent refusal to cooperate has caused the need to escalate the matter via the council’s formal complaints mechanism and of course enter into a complaint with the LGO. These actions alone have taken a significant amount of time and caused gross inconvenience. However the further consequences, which I would be prudent not to refer to in this complaint, have added substantially to that gross inconvenience.


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.

The council has implied in its 13 November 2015 letter that it does not intend allocating all future payments in accordance with my election. In order to clarify this I instructed the council, as I am lawfully entitled, that unless there were express instructions (in writing) to the contrary, payment should be allocated to the current year's liability, whether or not a sum matches an instalment amount.

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 would be reasonable to expect the council offer payment of a suitable amount firstly as compensation for the error, and secondly for its intransigence by refusing to cooperate, causing the added inconvenience I'm being put to.

Annex A to H .......

[outlawlgo]

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

Made a submission to the Conduct Ombudsman regarding the Judicial Conduct Investigations handling of the complaint, just for the record and so that Sir John Brigstocke KCB can justify his salary.

Only a couple of sections on the form are of any relevance:

4. Your complaint

The Judicial Conduct Investigations Office explained that my complaint could not be accepted for consideration because it did not contain an allegation of misconduct on the part of a judicial office holder. I disagree completely. It was in anticipation of this view that I deliberately emphasised that my complaint did not constitute an appeal of the court’s decision, but a complaint made in accordance with the Judicial Conduct (Judicial and other office holders) Rules 2014 about the judge’s conduct on several counts which coincided with the misconduct descriptions set out on the complaint application web page.

Those were itemised as follows:

i) Professional Misconduct
ii) Criminal Allegations
iii) Inappropriate Comments / Discrimination
iv) Misuse of Judicial Powers

The Caseworker was of the opinion that my complaint surrounded an appeal I had made to the High Court which was still to be determined. That was not my complaint. Details were only included as it was a relevant factor in the matter.

The Caseworker gives an example where he considers a judge's bias is not a conduct matter but something for which the victim of that bias should be put to the trouble and expense of appealing to a higher court. There must be some incentive for a judge in the Magistrates' court to conduct himself properly, like having an effective watchdog, otherwise the only message that is sent out is that the hierarchical court system exists as an excuse for incompetence in the lower courts as they can claim fairness of the system with it being open to you to make use of the casino justice system by appealing a botched decision to a higher court.

5. What are you hoping to achieve from your complaint?

I am disgusted with how the justice system operates. There is simply no accountability for judges making appallingly bad decisions with the emphasis on bias towards the authorities. If what I've seen of it is typical I hope that my compliant goes some way to reforming the system which is apparently corrupt to the core. A start would be investigate why the judge in my case granted a liability order knowing that a false statement had been made by the claimant with the intention to defraud me.

[outlawlgo]

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

From: Humberside police
To: 'outlawlgo'
Sent: November 13, 2015
Subject: RECENT CORRESPONDENCE WITH HUMBERSIDE POLICE

[outlawlgo],

I write with regard to your recent correspondence with Humberside Police. I have brought the matter to the attention of our Professional Standards Branch that are based at Priory Road in Hull. Someone will be in touch in due course.

I would advise that you collate all evidence and intelligence that would support the claims you are making against the court.

Yours sincerely,

Police Sergeant

The police have written saying they're considering the matter but have not asked for further details.

The witness statement has been produced anyway which they can have:

Perjury to Commit Fraud 2nd December 2015

[outlawlgo]

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

No surprises from the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office. Osborne is targeting the wrong things. If he shut down all these bogus and useless governing bodies he'd have the deficit sorted without having to penalise the poor.

Judicial Conduct Complaint Outcome

Judicial Conduct Investigations Office
81 & 82 Queens Building
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London
WC2A 2LL
DX44450 Strand

27 November 2015

Your complaint about District Judge (DJ) Curtis

I am writing further to your complaint of 07 November 2015, received 09 November 2015, to inform you that the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO) is unable to accept it for consideration. This is because your complaint does not contain an allegation of misconduct on the part of a judicial office holder. Rule 8 of the Judicial Conduct (Judicial and other Office Holders) Rules 2014 requires that your complaint meets this criterion if it is to be considered as valid.

In summary, you complain that DJ Curtis acted outside his powers and perverted the course of justice by making an order in the claimant’s favour despite your ‘indisputable evidence that a false and corrupt statement had been made’. You state that DJ Curtis was unwilling to listen to, accept or understand your evidence and you sensed ‘he pretended to be out of his depth as a strategy for denying evidence that might, if considered, defeat the claimant’s argument’. Further, you state that DJ Curtis was antagonistic and belittling as, in relation to your submissions, he commented that he had listened for half-an-hour to a political diatribe, only 5 minutes of which made sense, and he interrogated you about irrelevant matters concerning council tax instalments.

The concerns put forward in your complaint, and summarised above, do not constitute a case of personal misconduct on the part of a judicial office holder. Your complaint relates to judicial decision and judicial case management. The JCIO is unable to investigate, challenge or question a judge’s decision or case handling because these are part of a judge’s function and not personal conduct. An essential part of a judge’s function is weighing up the evidence presented to them and applying the law accordingly. In order to carry out this aspect of their function, judges have discretion to determine the evidence they are willing to consider and the matters they wish to explore in a hearing, irrespective of whether a party considers those matters irrelevant. Further, although I note you state DJ Curtis was antagonistic and belittling, judges are entitled to respond to the parties’ evidence and I confirm that DJ Curtis’s response to your submissions would not be a matter of misconduct because it relates to his handling of the case in court.

I note you state that your appeal to the High Court is still to be determined. I confirm that judicial decisions can only be challenged through the appeal process, where one exists, or by judicial review. The judicial discipline process cannot be used as alternative method for challenging any aspect of a judicial decision. For example, if a party were of the opinion that the decision in their case was influenced by bias, the appropriate course of action would be to appeal. This office is not able to review a judicial decision to be able to ascertain whether it was correct in law or made as a result of bias. The only way of determining this is for a case to be appealed and, therefore, subject to review by a higher court. If, on appeal, a judge was criticised for their decision because of bias, this could then be subject to consideration by this office and the Lord Chancellor and Lord Chief Justice.

In regard to your court case, you may wish to consider seeking legal advice. Members of staff at the JCIO are not legally trained. However, you may find it helpful to seek advice from a solicitor, law centre or the Citizen’s Advice Bureau (http://www.citizensadvice.org.uk). The Civil Legal Service (CLS) – a Government organisation – might also be able to help. This service helps put people in touch with sources of legal advice in their area. Further details about the CLS can be found on their website (https://www.gov.uk/civil-legal-advice). The Bar Pro Bono Unit may also be of assistance. The Unit receives applications for assistance through advice agencies and solicitors. The Unit aims to help in cases where the applicant cannot afford to pay for the assistance sought or obtain public funding, has a meritorious case, and needs the help a barrister can provide. Further details about the charity and how to apply can be found on their website: www.barprobono.org.uk.

With further reference to your allegation that DJ Curtis has perverted the course of justice, the JCIO does not have remit to consider criminal allegations. In the event that a judicial office holder was to be found guilty of committing a criminal offence, the matter may be referred to the JCIO for further consideration.

Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman
If you are unhappy about my handling of your complaint, you should contact the Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman, Sir John Brigstocke KCB. The Ombudsman can consider complaints about how I have handled your complaint, but he does not have the power to investigate your original complaint to the JCIO.

The Ombudsman will consider a complaint if you write to him within 28 days of our decision. After this time, he will consider whether he is able to investigate it. You can contact the Ombudsman:

• in writing at: 9th Floor Tower, 9.53, 102 Petty France, London, SW1H 9AJ;
• by e-mail at headofoffice@jaco.gsi.gov.uk ; and
• by telephone on 020 3334 2900.

For further information about the Ombudsman see www.judicialombudsman.gov.uk

Judicial complaint submitted

Allegations of Judicial Misconduct

For the avoidance of doubt, this does not constitute an appeal of the court’s decision, it is a complaint made in accordance with the Judicial Conduct (Judicial and other office holders) Rules 2014 about the judge’s conduct on several counts which are set out in detail above and itemised as follows:

i) Professional Misconduct

ii) Criminal Allegations
iii) Inappropriate Comments / Discrimination
iv) Misuse of Judicial Powers

I confirm that the information I have provided is correct

Judicial Conduct and Investigations Office, Royal Courts of Justice,
Queens Building, Strand, London WC2A 2LL

[outlawlgo]

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

Could this mean the force intends doing a proper job of investigating or just going through the motions?

From: Humberside police
To: 'outlawlgo'
Sent: November 13, 2015
Subject: RECENT CORRESPONDENCE WITH HUMBERSIDE POLICE

[outlawlgo],

I write with regard to your recent correspondence with Humberside Police. I have brought the matter to the attention of our Professional Standards Branch that are based at Priory Road in Hull. Someone will be in touch in due course.

I would advise that you collate all evidence and intelligence that would support the claims you are making against the court.

Yours sincerely,

Police Sergeant

[outlawlgo]

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

The Council has not replied to my email instructing them that any payments should only be allocated to my current year's liability (not to the fraudulent summons costs).

It's correspondence today (dated 8 November 15) makes it clear that it expects three instalments to be paid totalling £302 for the sum which amounts to £182 (the remaining outstanding council tax for this year).

Dear Sir/Madam

Special Payment Arrangement – Debt under Enforcement
Account Number .....

Number of payments	On / commencing	Amount £
1	01-Dec-2015	100.66
2	01-Jan-2016	100.67

Payment frequency is :- Monthly

If you do not make the first payment before the date shown above, this arrangement will be cancelled without further contact and recovery action will be taken against you. The Council may proceed to recover the debt by [attachment] of earnings, deduction from your benefit via the DWP, or your account may be passed to an Enforcement Agent (bailiff) which could mean you could incur additional fees and the possibility of your belongings being removed for sale at auction.

If you are experiencing financial difficulties and are unable to commit to the above arrangement then you must complete the enclosed income and expenditure questionnaire making sure all areas are completed, with an offer of payment. The Council will in due course confirm if your offer to clear the amount is acceptable.

Debt Management Section

Note: There is no enclosed income and expenditure questionnaire and I suspect this is a mistake which it has duplicated 100s of times because of the process being automated.

Not withstanding the missing questionnaire, I personally handed the form in to the council weeks ago with my income showing zero.

[Crazy council]

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

I dont meen nts or rw. I meen that copper. Who wrote to you and met me. I will email u later make u laugh

[outlawlgo]

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

...Its been very complex to prove, but am there. I have found some connections to the property things i mentioned to u and one off the officers we both dealt with.

Has that person had a job description change – to Debt Manager or something like that?

[Crazy council]

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

Hi.

Am literaly deal with tjis exact point with blunderside at the mo.

Its criminal not civil. The police just dont understand the accounting mecenisums used and the parts of the lgfa that make it an offence. Add the internal accounting procedures around customer accounts. Its been very complex to prove, but am there. I have found some connections to the property things i mentioned to u and one off the officers we both dealt with.

[Crazy council]

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

Am dealing with these atm [MENTION=8136]outlawlgo[/MENTION] will update u next week

[outlawlgo]

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

Humberside police are up to their old tricks and classifying fraud as a civil matter.

From: Morley, Gillian 9614
To: 'outlawlgo'
Sent: November 11, 2015
Subject: Crime Reporting Submission

Mr outlawlgo

With regards to your report that was submitted to Humberside Police on 08/11/2015 as follows:

North East Lincolnshire Council produced a false witness statement (thereby committing perjury) with regards a council tax liability hearing at Grimsby Magistrates' Court. The District Judge (Daniel Curtis) was aware that the evidence surrounded a false and corrupt statement, but nevertheless granted the council a liability order to enforce a fraudulent sum which presently stands at £120.00. This sum is likely to increase if the council appoints its criminal firm of bailiffs, Rossendales. My allegations are that the council has committed perjury with the intent to fraudulently obtain money from me by the use of Grimsby Magistrates court and that Judge Daniel Curtis has perverted the course of justice by being complicit to that crime.

Please be advised that this is not a Police matter and is civil which I suggest you seek further advice from a solicitor/legal advisor.

Command Hub
Humberside Police

There needs to be a refusal by a high ranking officer to get a complaint about an officer's conduct outside an internal investigation.

From: outlawlgo
To: Morley, Gillian 9614
Sent: November 12, 2015
Subject: Re: Crime Reporting Submission

Dear Ms Morley

I am in disbelief that Humberside police have arrived at the conclusion that fraud is not a police matter. I have not heard such an absurd statement since the force said the same with regards bailiff firms defrauding council taxpayers.

Your suggestion that I am put to the expense of enriching the legal profession when I am in any event contributing to fund the police out of the very tax which the council wishes to defraud from me has some irony to it.

I am left obviously with no option than to submit a complaint about whoever within the force made this decision. However, I would much prefer the person against whom I make the complaint to be the Chief Constable so that any investigation will not be conducted by the force itself in the hope of removing the 'sham' element which is associated with these matters. Therefore, please escalate this matter for the attention of the Chief Constable.

Yours sincerely

[outlawlgo]

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

With it pretty much confirmed that North East Lincolnshire Council has Grimsby Magistrates' court on its side, the need to tread with more caution is obvious. Who knows to what devious depths it will sink in trying to obtain its fraudulently secured costs.

The email sent earlier should put a stop to any plans it might have of misallocating money as it did last time. In the event it appoints its bailiff contractor, that has been taken care of too. It has only one option available, which is imprisonment, but that will only cost the taxpayer and obtain nothing?

From: me
To: counciltax@nelincs.gov.uk
Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2015
Subject: Appropriation of Payments

Dear Sir/Madam

Re: Council Tax Account – 550xzzzxyz

I have two instalments remaining of £91.00 (£182.00 in total) in respect of my 2015/16 council tax liability.

It is noted from viewing NELC's website that my account shows a total sum of £302.00.

£120.00 therefore does not relate to my current year's council tax liability. £60.00 of that sum relates to summons costs from November 2012 which are suspended pending a high court appeal; the remaining £60.00 relates to a sum which NELC obtained in an attached claim of costs in a fraudulent application for liability order.

I am writing to make it categorically clear that any payment I make on my account (whether [or not] that sum matches an instalment amount) my express election is for that payment to be allocated to the current year's liability. This applies also to future year's, unless there are express instructions (in writing) to the contrary.

Also for the avoidance of doubt, should NELC decide upon instructing its bailiff contractor to attempt collecting any of the fraudulently obtained summons costs, NELC does not have my permission to allocate any element of payment I make on my account in respect of sums accruing in fees and charges.

I require acknowledgement that NELC fully understands these instructions.

Yours sincerely