Tweet
I wrote a letter to the "view points" section in my local news paper in response to a letter dealing with the pettiness of North East Lincolnshire council in adding summons and liability order costs to residents council tax accounts.
I thought the letter would be in the public interest, however, it appears that the Grimsby Evening Telegraph are not going to print it for one reason or another.
So I will post it here and hope that at least some Grimsby and Cleethorpes residents will be able to read what our paper won't print.
Edit: Maybe I made a hasty decision about the article NOT being published.
I thought the letter would be in the public interest, however, it appears that the Grimsby Evening Telegraph are not going to print it for one reason or another.
So I will post it here and hope that at least some Grimsby and Cleethorpes residents will be able to read what our paper won't print.
Edit: Maybe I made a hasty decision about the article NOT being published.
In response to the letter dated 28 September 2010 (Petty Council)
Council action goes far beyond pettiness.
I'm responding to the article dealing with money which is made from residents of North East Lincolnshire. The summons and liability order fees associated with council tax, which are £32 and £25 respectfully, are added, often to the accounts of those least able to pay, which in effect, subsidise the wealthier residents. This system adopted by our council, I think goes far beyond pettiness.
Extra cash raked in with these additional payments are substantial, with CIPFA (Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy) statistics showing in 2007 - 2008 almost £600,000 in penalties were issued by our council for domestic council tax alone. This equates to summonses being issued to just over 20% of its residents and around 15% received both liability order and summons fees, adding another £57 to their bills. The council have a duty to its residents in collecting any unpaid council tax, but these measures are frequently extended to residents with no arrears. This procedure is obviously set up (through its automated date triggered system) to catch out the maximum number of council tax payers, including those who just happen to be late with a payment or two. The Council, paying only £3 for each liability order, make 800% return by exploiting the magistrates courts in this money making scam. On a point of injustice, where an aggrieved resident requests the issue of a summons directed to the council, lets say for the illegal actions of its appointed bailiffs (whom they are entirely responsible) there is a fee of £200 payable to the court for making this application. It has recently been necessary for the Local Government Ombudsman (LGO) to warn North East Lincs Council of their bailiffs' illegal levying of residents vehicles, were they knowingly choose a vehicle that is not the debtors for the purpose of adding a fraudulent levy fee. Though local authorities will tell you that their appointed bailiffs follow a strict code of conduct and are often referred to as "The council’s reputable bailiff company".
“The council’s reputable bailiff company” in the case of NELC is a company called Rossendales Ltd who are agents to around 150 councils and like numerous private bailiff firms they are handed liability orders from local authorities to recover outstanding council tax. Because private bailiffs make their money by adding fees to the outstanding debt and are not paid by the council, this encourages them to devise ways, often unlawful as in the levy scam mentioned previously, to maximise their fees. NEL residents who become involved with this or any other bailiff firm should be aware (there were over 5,600 in 2007 - 2008) that the amount they can charge is regulated, but despite this, unlawful fees are often added in the attempt to defraud the debtor, relying on their ignorance. However if their scams are discovered and challenged, they nearly always withdraw their fraudulent fees. Residents should also be aware that they have no legal obligation to deal with these bailiff firms, and is recommended that they don't communicate with them, and under no circumstances allow then into their home. Payments should always be made direct to the council, however, councils throughout the country are obstructive and will refuse payment once the debt has been passed to the bailiff firm. Persistence is needed here, as the council have to accept payment. The reason they insist they do not, is because the bailiff firm will be deprived of their fees.
Recently a former bailiff of Rossendales was convicted for fraud offences in Hounslow and Leeds and sentenced to a year in jail for scamming £27,000 in debt collections, and then as a landlord stole accommodation deposits from students totalling more than £3,700 in which statements read to the court said they were left homeless.
Another former bailiff of Rossendales avoided jail in November, receiving a suspended sentence for fraudulently pocketing close to £20,000 over a five month period while collecting council tax and business rates debts owed to North Somerset District Council.
In Essex more unlawful behaviour from a former bailiff of Rossendales resulted in a two year jail sentence in February for stealing nearly £21,000 from a widow in her 80s suffering from senile dementia, who also became involved in the proposed sale of her £400,000 home. These are examples of more serious cases that get press coverage, but for each of these there are thousands of other unlawful practices routinely carried out which secure bailiff firms maximum income while defrauding the debtor knowing the legal system will turn a blind eye.
These extreme measures are brought about by local authority’s obsessions with council tax collection rates. It maybe that they achieve a 0.1% increase by way of their reckless behaviour. But how much does this increased performance really cost in complaints and disputes etc?
Name and address supplied.
Council action goes far beyond pettiness.
I'm responding to the article dealing with money which is made from residents of North East Lincolnshire. The summons and liability order fees associated with council tax, which are £32 and £25 respectfully, are added, often to the accounts of those least able to pay, which in effect, subsidise the wealthier residents. This system adopted by our council, I think goes far beyond pettiness.
Extra cash raked in with these additional payments are substantial, with CIPFA (Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy) statistics showing in 2007 - 2008 almost £600,000 in penalties were issued by our council for domestic council tax alone. This equates to summonses being issued to just over 20% of its residents and around 15% received both liability order and summons fees, adding another £57 to their bills. The council have a duty to its residents in collecting any unpaid council tax, but these measures are frequently extended to residents with no arrears. This procedure is obviously set up (through its automated date triggered system) to catch out the maximum number of council tax payers, including those who just happen to be late with a payment or two. The Council, paying only £3 for each liability order, make 800% return by exploiting the magistrates courts in this money making scam. On a point of injustice, where an aggrieved resident requests the issue of a summons directed to the council, lets say for the illegal actions of its appointed bailiffs (whom they are entirely responsible) there is a fee of £200 payable to the court for making this application. It has recently been necessary for the Local Government Ombudsman (LGO) to warn North East Lincs Council of their bailiffs' illegal levying of residents vehicles, were they knowingly choose a vehicle that is not the debtors for the purpose of adding a fraudulent levy fee. Though local authorities will tell you that their appointed bailiffs follow a strict code of conduct and are often referred to as "The council’s reputable bailiff company".
“The council’s reputable bailiff company” in the case of NELC is a company called Rossendales Ltd who are agents to around 150 councils and like numerous private bailiff firms they are handed liability orders from local authorities to recover outstanding council tax. Because private bailiffs make their money by adding fees to the outstanding debt and are not paid by the council, this encourages them to devise ways, often unlawful as in the levy scam mentioned previously, to maximise their fees. NEL residents who become involved with this or any other bailiff firm should be aware (there were over 5,600 in 2007 - 2008) that the amount they can charge is regulated, but despite this, unlawful fees are often added in the attempt to defraud the debtor, relying on their ignorance. However if their scams are discovered and challenged, they nearly always withdraw their fraudulent fees. Residents should also be aware that they have no legal obligation to deal with these bailiff firms, and is recommended that they don't communicate with them, and under no circumstances allow then into their home. Payments should always be made direct to the council, however, councils throughout the country are obstructive and will refuse payment once the debt has been passed to the bailiff firm. Persistence is needed here, as the council have to accept payment. The reason they insist they do not, is because the bailiff firm will be deprived of their fees.
Recently a former bailiff of Rossendales was convicted for fraud offences in Hounslow and Leeds and sentenced to a year in jail for scamming £27,000 in debt collections, and then as a landlord stole accommodation deposits from students totalling more than £3,700 in which statements read to the court said they were left homeless.
Another former bailiff of Rossendales avoided jail in November, receiving a suspended sentence for fraudulently pocketing close to £20,000 over a five month period while collecting council tax and business rates debts owed to North Somerset District Council.
In Essex more unlawful behaviour from a former bailiff of Rossendales resulted in a two year jail sentence in February for stealing nearly £21,000 from a widow in her 80s suffering from senile dementia, who also became involved in the proposed sale of her £400,000 home. These are examples of more serious cases that get press coverage, but for each of these there are thousands of other unlawful practices routinely carried out which secure bailiff firms maximum income while defrauding the debtor knowing the legal system will turn a blind eye.
These extreme measures are brought about by local authority’s obsessions with council tax collection rates. It maybe that they achieve a 0.1% increase by way of their reckless behaviour. But how much does this increased performance really cost in complaints and disputes etc?
Name and address supplied.
Comment