Suing council for their bailiffs

[Mac99]

Re: Suing council for their bailiffs

Hi,

I dont know about legal aspects of such a problem but I will say that before you make a complaint against any organisation, I would make request under the Data Protection Act. Simply this is so that you can see what has been recorded, letters, dates of letters, etc.

In this case I would make a request to the council and the private company. In making the request you should always ask for internal & external correspomdence relating to you.

Further you should make a request for procedures, guidelines and all applicable policy documents. Why so you can see if the council or company have followed its own procedures. If they havent then this is what you will be able to base your arguments (court, Ombudsman, etc).

The two things that have not been mentioned are RIPA and PACE ie how evidence should be collected and recorded.

Hope that makes sense and helps.

Regards
Mac

[outlawlgo]

Re: Suing council for their bailiffs

Thanks for that Mac99, unfortunately it's too late to request all this information as I've now exhausted all avenues of complaint, although I do have copies of all correspondence sent to me (excluding two fictitious letters of the first and second visits from Rossendales), and I did get some itemisation of the charges incurred in response to a subject access request.

It's useful to know about the existence of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act and the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, I have never heard of these and will take a look at them, presumably these would concern my complaints and appeals with the Police and the Independent Police complaints commission? Though I'm convinced that all the evidence in the world would not make any of these organisations and authorities uphold my complaint.

The following is a letter I wrote to the Independent Police commission when asked for feedback about how my appeal was dealt with. Unbelievably they replied making reference to only about 1% of the content.

Independent Police Complaints Commission
90 High Holborn
London
WC1V 6BN

Your Ref: ******/*****

**/09/2010

Dear Sir/Madam


I have been invited to anonymously fill out a questionnaire asking for my views on making an appeal to the IPCC, which I’m informed, will be treated in confidence.

Firstly I would prefer not to hide behind anonymity, and secondly I would welcome that my views are made openly available. Further to this I can not believe, in light of the abysmal way my appeal has been dealt with that I have been sent an appeals feedback form. Insulting though your request is, I am prepared to give you feedback, though not via your standard form, whose little boxes are presumably scanned by some computer system. And for that reason, I suspect that this written version will probably not get processed.

The need for your pettiness which kicks off your report, dealing with what you call my “unnecessary” complaint, leading to letters that “may have confused matters further” may not have been necessary if organisations like the IPCC were not so inflexible and obsessed with eliminating human intervention in the attempt to automate the appeals procedure. This automated approach to the complaints system, has no doubt been brought about by ambitious I.T project engineers and because of the sheer volume of complaints which hinders the process and causes an inferior service. My case is one example that fails due to the rigid system that attempts to put you into one or another appeals category. The IPCC, in considering the points raised in both appeal forms, I think proves this.

What seems obvious to me is how your organisation, along with all the other ‘so called’ independent watchdogs, operates. Your reports must be prepared in reverse, i.e. you write down the closing statement, in the case of the IPCC that is “ON THE BASIS OF THIS ASSESSMENT I HAVE DECIDED NOT TO UPHOLD THE APPEAL”, and then work starts in concocting the remaining document. Although there is often a tokenacknowledgement somewhere in the report, that the complaint has a trace of validity, giving the impression that the organisation is not biased in the favour of the authority concerned. But this acknowledgement is soon countered, by some excuse for why the organisation will not uphold the complaint, be it out of their jurisdiction or some other.

What is also farcical about the way these reports are presented is the simple format they take. No doubt there is a template, where the blanks are filled in, often making sense only to the computer that devised them. Complainant’s evidence is conveniently selected or ignored at the organisation’s discretion, and only that which the casework manager chooses will be addressed.

An example of this simplified and selective consideration of the complaint’s contents can be found in item 3 of your appeal findings. You managed to reduce my claim (that I had been misled into believing that the crime would be investigated) to one sentence, that being “However, if you havefurther evidence that a crime has occurred or wish to discuss this matter further please do not hesitate to contact me …..” which you referred to as a “standardised letter”. I severely question your judgment with regards your comments relating to the “standardised letter”, especially where you say “that the same letter is used in all cases where no evidence of a crime exists”.

Assuming you read the contents of my appeal, you would have noticed that this was only one of many instances where I was fobbed off with the excuse that more evidence was required.

The following account which was supplied to you in my appeal, gives a more accurate picture as to why I feel I was misled by Humberside Police:

“
I received a letter dated **/05/09 (enclosed) from Detective Inspector *** ***** explaining that “at this stage we will not be starting a criminal investigation.” Though implying that if further evidence was found he may consider investigating the matter.

Therefore I made further enquiries with the council into how their so called reputable bailiffs had come by the figure they were demanding. Obtaining information through subject access requests etc, while keeping Det. Insp. ****** informed by email (enclosed).

I received another letter DATED **/05/09 (enclosed). I assume the date on this letter was a typing error and would suggest the date was more likely to be around the end of June. The letter explained that the matter originated from an unpaid Council Tax bill which was clearly not an issue for the Police, and that his “recommendation is that at this stage Humberside police do not investigate this matter.”

On this occasion the excuse not to investigate the matter was attributed to guidelines drawn up by the Association of Chief Police Officers issued 6th September 2004, which are used to make decisions on whether the Police should investigate fraud.

However, he also explained that “If on conclusion of the civil dispute there is new evidence of criminal activity I will review my position.”

I began the Council’s formal complaints procedure In July-09 and on the ** December I received the concluding response to the 4th stage of the procedure. And due to the unsatisfactory outcome to the complaint, I then appealed to the Local Government Ombudsman.

Although my complaints with the Local Authority and the L.G.O. were unsatisfactory and clearly a cover-up, the process had exposed and confirmed attempts of fraud and clear breaches of the Data Protection Act 1998.

I sent a letter dated **/04/2010(enclosed) to Det. Insp. *****,summarising the events in which the NELC and/or Rossendales acted negligently or unlawfully. I also provided clear references to breaches of the Data Protection Act, Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regs 1992 and non compliance with the National Standards for Enforcement Agents.

You will no doubt appreciate my disappointment, considering the efforts I had gone to, in learning for a third time that a decision had been made not to investigate the matter. On this occasion the “Home Office circular 47/2004”,(which provides the Home Office guidance on where priority should be given by the police) was used as the excuse not to investigate.

I looked at a website with information regarding the "Home Office circular 47/2004" and straight away saw the following:

"Nothing in these guidelines should be taken as preventing the police from investigating any case that they consider it appropriate to investigate."

I think it is fair to say that an investigation of this nature i.e. into a Local Authority and their contracted bailiff company, was never going to happen from the outset when my first letter went missing and was never distributed to the relevant department.

If the Police department had been straight with me from the start i.e. admitted that an investigation would never take place, I could have considered another course of action. Instead, due to misleading responses from the Police, I have spent literally months battling with one organisation after another obtaining the evidence requested of me and needed for a prosecution.
”
It appears to me from the above, that contrary to your view, there is no doubt that I had been misled. It’s clear that the Detective inspector had no intention, under any circumstances of investigating the bailiff’s attempt to defraud me, but for one reason or another couldn’t be straight with me. Instead he used as excuses ”guidelines drawn up by the Association of Chief Police Officers” on one occasion, and the "Home Office circular 47/2004” on another, or that “the matter originated from an unpaid Council Tax bill which was clearly not an issue for the Police”. Whatever the matter originated from is irrelevant, if what it led to was clearly a succession of attempts to defraud me by North East Lincolnshire Council and their bailiffs, Rossendales.

I fail to see how your statement in item 3 of your appeal findings has any relevance “the same letter is used in all cases where no evidence of a crime exists”, especially after I had supplied Detective Inspector ******* with details of unlawful practices carried out by Rossendales’ bailiffs, which included an illegal levy of a vehicle, several attempts of fraud and breaches of the Data protection act. The same details that were supplied to you in my appeal, I have included the main points in the following:

“
Although I have not had a satisfactory outcome to my complaints with the Local Authority or the LGO. The process has uncovered acts of fraud and illegality far exceeding what was first thought.

For your information to consider this case I will include as a preliminary a summary of events in which the NELC and/or Rossendales were negligent or criminal.

3) Alleged first visit by call bailiff Russell James Hall of Rossendales Ltd. on **th December 2008 incurring a fraudulent fee of £24.50, in which there was no evidence that a visit took place.

“The National Standards for Enforcement Agents require that, on every visit which incurs a fee, the bailiff will leave a notice detailing the fees charged to date, including the one for that visit, and the fees which will be incurred if further action becomes necessary.”

4) Alleged second visit by call bailiff Russell James Hall of Rossendales Ltd. on **th December 2008 incurring a fraudulent fee of £18, in which there was no evidence that a visit took place.

5) An illegal levy and fraudulent levy fee of £25 for the distraint of a vehicle by Ajoy Singh of Rossendales, now Philips Collection Services on *th March 2009, in which I did not receive a notice of distress, had no knowledge about it and it was not my vehicle.

Ref: Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regs 1992


Summary of levy related events:

On the *th March 2009 Mr. Ajoy Singh allegedly created a Notice of Seizure of Goods & Inventory advising me that he had levied against a vehicle which was in the car park at the apartment complex where I live.

Fees I was charged by Rossendales were not itemised, until **th May 2009 in response to a subject access request in which a levy fee was listed. (I knew nothing about the levy).

I was unaware that the bailiff had levied on a vehicle until **st July 2009 when I was sent a copy of the document in response to a formal complaint about the conduct and application of fees by Rossendales.

There was no notice of Seizure of Goods & Inventory handed to me or left with me on the *th of March 2009, only an envelope I found by chance wedged outside the entrance door to the apartment block of my residence, in which was a demand headed bailiff removal and threatening to remove goods even in my absence. I believe Regulation 45 SI 1992/613 requires a bailiff to hand the debtor a copy of the regulation, a memo of the amount due and a copy of any agreement.

This vehicle is not owned by me. I do not know the owner of the vehicle and it would appear that the bailiff has randomly selected this car because it was parked close to my home, despite confirmation from the DVLA that Rossendales have access to driver/vehicle data on a next day basis. It is of my opinion that the bailiff’s action was solely to generate an extra fee and in illegally seizing this vehicle he applied a fraudulent £25 levy fee to my account.

6 A fraudulent fee of £60 added to my account by Ajoy Singh of Rossendales, now Philips Collection Services on *th March 2009.

An invented figure of £60 was added to the demand on the *th of March. Interestingly the copy of the supposed levy document I received in July did not include the £60 overcharge, whereas that received on the day was hand written on the demand. I suspect this would have some relevance to why I did not get to know about the levy?

7 A fraudulent van fee of £110 was added to my account by Ajoy Singh of Rossendales, now Philips Collection Services on *th March 2009.

a. Because there were no goods listed to be removed (i.e. there was no legally required Notice of Seizure of Goods & Inventory).

b. The levy was illegal (item 5)

c. A van and levy fee can not be charged on the same day.

8 A £24.50 Schedule 5 head H fee was fraudulently added to my account.

The Schedule 5 head H fee is levy related and since the levy was illegal (item 5) this would make this charge fraudulent.
”

Considering the extent of the total disregard of the law by Rossendales, which is displayed in the above evidence I am of the opinion that the evidence supplied to the Police department is irrelevant, that is to say that the department will decide, whether or not a case will be investigated regardless of what evidence there is or what legislation has been breached. No doubt all accusations against local authorities will be dismissed as a matter of course. Particularly interesting is that of the Pakistan's cricket scandal currently ongoing, why would this attract Scotland Yard inquiring into what is effectively a game, while Police turn a blind eye, to an industry which is systematically defrauding millions of its citizens?

My experience in this appeals procedure has confirmed my suspicions that your organisation is completely pointless and a waste of tax payer’s money. When I say confirmed my suspicions, I was under no illusion that my complaint to the Humberside Police and later my appeal to the IPPC would be treated in any other way than it has, and that is to function as a cover for the authorities involved.

It is clear from the way your appeals system and the complaints procedure of the Police is set up that the majority of complaints will be diverted away from investigation or will not have an “appeal right”. The scope for complaints is so limited that many fall outside the rigid appeals categories, there’s obviously need for a complete review of your organisation, especially considering the amount of tax payer’s money, poured into this “so called” independent body which is in place to cover up for the Police, with the prosecution service, Police and IPCC all acting as a justice system which closes ranks to protect its own.

The police, Courts, independent watchdog organisations and local authorities must be living in a bubble if they don’t realise that these private bailiffs are systematically defrauding or attempting to defraud millions of tax payers. I don’t believe you are all ignorant of this practice, and so I can only assume that your organisations are just one huge corrupt back covering operation that decides who may flout the law with impunity. It is understandable that when an organisation is set up to make the Police force accountable, and so obviously does not, that there will be suspicions into what incentives are being given by the authorities to the organisations, to arrive at the desired outcome. When you consider the £billions that such organisations cost it can be concluded that the desired outcomes are in effect bought, but still worse are paid for with the tax payers’ money. It’s so obvious that the IPCC like other similar organisations have been set up to try and convince the public that the Police are accountable but we all know that this is a sham. The IPCC is an ineffective waste of tax payer’s money and should be disbanded and replaced with a truly independent organisation.


Yours sincerely

***** ****

[homealone1961]

Re: Suing council for their bailiffs

Hi outlawlgo.
I understand an independant investigation into the LGO was started on 12.09.10 by the Law Commision.hope they can be of some help.

[outlawlgo]

Re: Suing council for their bailiffs

Hi outlawlgo.
I understand an independant investigation into the LGO was started on 12.09.10 by the Law Commision.hope they can be of some help.

Yes, I hope that this investigation will improve the effectiveness of the LGO, but I believe this law commission is just another independent watchdog overseeing another independent watchdog organisation. I wonder which quango oversees the Law Commission?

There is an interesting site http://lgowatcher.blogspot.com which deals with the Law Commission's investigation into the LGO.

This is the press release from the Law commission of the 2nd September:

Law
Commission
Reforming the law

Press Release
Embargoed until 00:01 hours on
Thursday, 2 September 2010

Clearing the path to public service complaints

Reforms to make it easier to complain if you suffer poor public services are today proposed by the Law Commission.

In its latest consultation the Commission, which advises the Government on law reform, suggests a shake-up of procedures to bring consistency to the way the main public services ombudsmen do business and make it easier for the public to seek redress.

The public services ombudsmen have wide-ranging powers to investigate complaints against health service providers, housing associations and a host of Government departments and agencies.

Complaints are dealt with for free and can result in financial compensation and an apology. But the procedures for making a complaint are often outdated and inconsistent. For example, complaints must usually be submitted in writing and in some cases can be made only through an MP.

The proposed reforms will help to keep cases out of court: under current rules the ombudsman should not deal with a complaint after court proceedings have begun, even if the complainant was badly advised to go to court. In future, the Law Commission would like courts to transfer appropriate cases to the ombudsman.

Frances Patterson QC, the Law Commissioner leading on the project, said:

“The public services ombudsmen have a vital role to play in providing remedies for administrative injustice suffered by individuals. By improving access to these ombudsmen, we can reduce the burden that falls on the citizen, public bodies and the courts, and realise savings for citizens and government.”

The consultation focuses on five statutory ombudsmen: the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, Public Services Ombudsman for Wales, and the Local Government, Health Service and Housing Ombudsmen.

The Commission is seeking responses by 3 December 2010. The consultation paper, “Public Services Ombudsmen”, is available on www.lawcom.gov.uk

[Arrogant Duck]

Re: Suing council for their bailiffs

Let me know how this goes. I am planning on suing Rossendales over their fraudulent charges. I paid them £70 more than I needed to over a year ago but they're still chasing for phantom amounts that they seem to be plucking out thin air.

[outlawlgo]

Re: Suing council for their bailiffs

Here are some responses brought about by a complaint regarding the council's obnoxious threatening letters (which also include unresolved Rossendale issues), once again demonstrating the futility of entering into the complaints procedure of any government run organisation, North East Lincolnshire Council on this occasion. Their comments in blue text:

I have received your reply to my stage one formal complaint, originally dated 4th October 2010. However, I notice from your 'item 2' (paragraph from my complaint letter omitting certain text), that it doesn't make complete sense.

Has this been done to avoid answering the question which was omitted from the paragraph?

i.e.
Am I right in assuming that the date’s inaccuracy has something to do with automatically generated letters which are produced en mass and only on selected dates? And that the reason I have received this letter is down to computer technology, which is automatically triggered by certain parameters written into the computer program and with no human input except for the initial creation of the content of the letter?

This was not done to avoid answering your question. I answered this in the most effective way by considering your circumstances. I explained that there was no inaccuracy as you were in arrears. The way the system is set up or parameters are set is in line with legislation and council policy and you were given more than enough time to ensure the required payment had been made.

You are obviously well aware of the computer process for reminders therefore I do not feel the need to go through this process with you. The fact remains that you received this letter because you were in arrears with your council tax.


As "debt recovery Manager" I'm surprised that you are not aware, or appear not to be aware of the The council tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 (No. 613) and in particular regulation 45 (distress) Enforcement, PART VI. I can only assume you are not familiar with this legislation owing to your response in "item 3".

"Working in line with council policy" as you stated council staff were doing, implies the council are a law unto themselves, with the council tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations being of no consequence. Therefore I'm dissatisfied with this response and would appreciate you addressing this issue more thoroughly.

I am aware of the regulations above which state that ‘’ If before any goods are seized, the appropriate amount (including charges arising at the time of the payment or tender) is paid or tendered to the authority, the authority shall accept the amount, and the levy shall not be proceeded with.’’

At no time did you offer full payment including fees and charges as stated above to the authority, had you offered to make full immediate payment using cleared funds and including Rossendales’ fees and charges then it would have been accepted.

I would also like to bring it to your attention about the councils' court enforcement manager, Mr. Neil Smith. Particularly important as he is in a position to influence important decisions, in court for example. A person with this influence should not be a known liar. So I'll remind you of the reply I received to a formal complaint regarding Rossendales ability to gain information from DVLA:

“A DVLA check cannot be accomplished online and must be sent via filling in a V888 Form and sending it by post to DVLA Swansea, this can take up to 10 days for the information to be received. Due to the fact that the levy had taken place and that the vehicle in question could have been removed in that 10 day window it is unreasonable that a DVLA check is completed at this time and the onus of proof changes to the third party of the vehicle.”

Now you are aware more specifically about how Mr. Smith lied to me in writing, I would appreciate you addressing this issue more thoroughly.

Mr Smith did not lie to you; the information given at the time was information that was obtained from the DVLA. I have checked with the DVLA again today who stated that the form above would have to be sent with the required fee. We can only provide the information given to us and have made every effort to address your complaint.

I have also spoken to Rossendales and have been advised that they only have access to ACA (Approved Conditional Access) for Road traffic offences.

The statement regarding the onus of proof is correct.

I also noticed issues that were not addressed and questions unanswered which I would like to be included in my reply, so I have as complete a first stage reply as possible, before proceeding to the stage two complaint.

1. From my complaint:

I will remind you of the fiasco brought about by your immoral debt recovery strategies and use of Rossendales bailiffs. (I trust Rossendales no longer act as bailiffs for you after I exposed their attempt to defraud me on several occasions?)

Are Rossendales, still bailiffs for North East Lincolnshire? And If so, why, when you're aware that they operate criminally?

Rossendales do still act as bailiffs for the council; I have seen no evidence of criminal activity. Some issues that arose in your case were unacceptable and parts of your complaint were upheld, however once the issues were raised the matter was dealt with efficiently and effectively by both staff at the council and at Rossendales. You are aware that the bailiff concerned no longer works for Rossendales as a result of this.


2. From my complaint:

Failure of Rossendales and the Council transferring on daily basis information relating to my council tax account, resulting in Rossendales overcharging from the outset. And their records not registering payments made up to six weeks previous.

I apologise for the delay in this process, when customers continue to pay to the council via the internet or other non direct methods of payment, after they have been advised not to do so, there is the risk that we will not be aware of these individual payments. Once this issue was raised it was dealt with, you had no costs to pay to Rossendales, and therefore this matter has been addressed.


Although this relates to my first complaint about your use of Rossendales, it has never been addressed. This is particularly important as I've read in a reply to a FOI request that extra revenue you receive, generated in the recovery process is used for "technological systems" amongst other things, as per the following:

‘The monies collected are offset against the recovery of Council Tax. This includes the technological systems in place, employment of staff and procedures and legislation followed to attain a high return of Council Tax payments’.

The above relates to Summons and Liability Order costs and is correct. The council receives no revenue from Rossendales costs.


3. From my complaint:

Leaving a document of a sensitive nature that being a removal notice wedged outside of the security door at my residence, breaching the Data Protection Act and contravening The National Standards for Enforcement Agents requirements, as it could clearly have been intercepted by someone passing.

Although this relates to my first complaint about your use of Rossendales, the breaches of data protection were never addressed.

With regard to a breach of Data Protection you are asking about something that ‘could’ have happened but did not. Both the council and Rossendales Ltd. have dealt with this matter, as stated before the bailiff concerned no longer works for Rossendales.


4. From my complaint:

I’m aware that the council take advantage of the debtor’s misfortune and exploit the magistrate’s courts by making money out of it by charging further costs of £32.00 and £25.00, before handing over the reigns to the private bailiff who then systematically defrauds the residents in an attempt to maximise their fees. It’s so obvious that the less well off, or people who have fallen on hard times are providing for an immoral living of the parasitical bailiffs and subsidising the wealthier by paying additional council tax, which no doubt many turn to loan sharks (you really are a sick immoral organisation). I don’t believe for a minute that the council is ignorant of this practice, in fact I’m sure it encourages it.

Why are the courts exploited for the purpose of obtaining £57 from residents who have the least ability to pay, when the cost to the council is only £3 each resident?

As stated before:

‘The monies collected are offset against the recovery of Council Tax. This includes the technological systems in place, employment of staff and procedures and legislation followed to attain a high return of Council Tax payments’.

Any costs have to be agreed by the Magistrates Court therefore this is not exploitation.


Can you justify why the more wealthy residents' council tax is subsidised by the less fortunate who incur extra charges?

I disagree with the statement above, in fact each council tax payer subsidises bad debt which is factored in to the council tax bill.


Can you justify why you provide an opportunity for the obviously immoral private bailiff firms to fleece the most vulnerable in society by defrauding them with the full knowledge that the law will turn a blind eye?

I disagree with this statement. I have seen no evidence of the above in relation to the council working with Rossendales Ltd. We have a robust policy with regard to the use of bailiffs as you have been advised in your previous complaint.


Can you tell me truthfully your views about the illegal practice of your appointed bailiff firm?

I have seen no evidence of illegal practice, there were errors in your case and this has been dealt with as stated before.
.

As all these issues are important and should not be brushed under the carpet, I would appreciate all the above to be addressed seriously and not just treated as an exercise in fobbing off the complainant.

Responsibility for your previous account being passed to Rossendales Ltd. lies with you. You were given ample opportunity to contact the council prior to the account being passed to Rossendales and you chose not to do so.

I am absolutely not brushing these issues under the carpet or trying to fob you off, I have addressed more than I needed to in the complaint regarding your reminder and once again have tried to work with you on the issues above. However, I will not be drawn into your previous complaint further or comment on unproven statements or opinion.

The councils Chief executive Tony Hunter has requested I keep him updated therefore a copy of this response will be sent to him.

You have stated it may be your intention to progress this complaint to stage 2 therefore I have furnished you with the details of this process below:
You can ask that your complaint be progressed to stage 2 of the council’s corporate complaints procedure by contacting the Business Support Unit, Civic offices, Knoll Street, Cleethorpes. DN35 8LN.

[M31]

Re: Suing council for their bailiffs






Hi All, I am new here but just
want to add some info to the convo. I have legal qualifications and having
successfully sued my former employer twice by representing myself am now well
on my way to becoming a barrister. I too have been recently hit by Newlyn and
co. They claim that a certain council issued a liability order for non payment
of CT yet I was in receipt of CT benefits at the time and these so called
summonses were issued after I had left the property. This is bit of a complex
case in that I had very dodgy private landlord company that used to be owned by
Anthea Turners husband Grant Bovey who went under.


They never informed the Council that
I had left. I left in March and the liability order was granted in June the
same year. They must have sent summonses in the period I was not living there,
therefore not giving me an opportunity to defend myself which is of course a
breach of Article 6 ECHR and as the Council is a public body I can enforce that
against them via the HRA 1998.


(Apologies it wont allow me to use
the return key on here!) The landlord unsuccessfully tried to sue me for non
payment of rent but after I lodged my defence they withdrew the case but I had
a more than valid defence anyway. I am thinking of challenging the council
legally on the basis that they have flagrantly violated Part IV and V of the
Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 and the ECHR.
They have decided to pick on the wrong person he he! Secondly, I had a distress
levy notice pushed through my door with a random cars licence plate on it. I
don't even have a licence so no chance car is mine. I have read accounts on
here of Newlyns doing this so am not scared one iota.

I sent Newlyn a nice polite reminder
that no one that lives here owes any council any money via a cease and desist
letter and kindly reminded them not to trespass or send anymore "Dear
Occupier" phishing letters like they did two weeks ago. I am prepared to
take these morons on but my real beef is with the council. I will take on the organ
grinder not the monkey!
M31