FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL

Information Rights
Tribunal Reference: EA/.. Appellant: . Respondent: The Information Commissioner

Written evidence to support appeal against decision notice

Contents
Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 1

LGO investigation into Blaby District Council .................................................. 2

North East Lincolnshire Council ......................................................................... 3

Huntingdonshire District council .........................................................................9

Mid Sussex District council ................................................................................14

Annex A Rossendales Notice of Distress .................................................................19 Annex B Freedom of Information Request to MSDC..................................................20

Introduction
It is generally council policy that once its formal complaints procedure has been exhausted the authority will not enter into further discussion or correspondence in relation to the issues raised, no matter how incompetently theyre dealt with and wrong its findings. Because of this there will be thousands of householders each year, who, after being caused injustice, are unlikely to receive redress because of council policy to prioritise protecting reputation over the rights of its residents. The evidence collected and detailed in this document consists of four case studies. Three are in connection with councils other than North East Lincolnshire, however, they provide evidence that councils generally operate in the same way. I hope this will reinforce my assertion that an agreement or policy, detailed in my Freedom of Information request, exists in some form and the grounds upon which it was formulated were reasonable. It is relevant to take into consideration how other authorities operate as the probability all councils work this way was introduced in my 23 July 2012 email to the council while addressing the councils claim that information detailed in my request was not recorded.
..complaints and enquiries are dealt with by the council in the way I detailed in my request. NELC is not the only council. I know local authorities in general consistently take the same approach. For there not to be a formal procedure instructing that staff lie to, obstruct and fob-off the complainant is quite honestly unbelievable and if not recorded will certainly be policy.

This is only a very small sample of many cases it has been possible to document in the time constraints to present this evidence. They are however, typical of how the majority, if not all councils stubbornly refuse to admit their private bailiff contractors use unlawful enforcement methods. They are perfect examples of the way in which councils favour concluding grievances as unfounded to upholding complaints. There are probably two main reasons why councils would want to keep their upheld complaints to a minimum. All councils are required to submit details each year to the Local Government Ombudsman relating to the number of formal complaints they receive, the complaints are categorised and split into the number unfounded/upheld etc. The number of complaints upheld determines whether or not the respective councils would require investigation to identify failings in the running of the authority. So, this intransigence everyone experiences when dealing with their councils, would seem to function to protect key managers within the organization and preserve the reputation of the council. The other reason, especially in the case of bailiff malpractice, is there would be greater pressure on the head of department to submit a form 5 complaint 1 about the bailiff to the certificating court. It is unlikely a good working relation between the enforcement firm and the council would be maintained if this action was taken. It seems in these circumstances it is left to the enforcement firm to investigate. There is a clear conflict of interest for the bailiff firm investigating itself as the prosecution of criminal behaviour is being circumvented. This evidence is composed of four examples including my own, two from currently active threads on a bailiff help forum and a case documented in an LGO report.

A form 5 complaint can be submitted by local authorities to notify the county court of an upheld complaint against a Certificated Bailiff. This complaint can be considered by a circuit judge in the same manner as a complaint made straight to the court by an aggrieved person, i.e. the Form 4 route outlined in Regulation 8(1) of the Distress for Rent Rules 1988.

LGO investigation into Blaby District Council

The part of the Ombudsman's Report 2 relevant to the obstruction, etc., dealt with in the Freedom of Information request, is set-out in the Report summary of that document:

Benefits and tax Mrs Smith complains that bailiffs employed by the Council to collect her council tax arrears had not acted within the law and had overcharged her. She also complains that the Council failed to properly answer her queries and complaints about these issues. The Ombudsman finds that the Council failed to exercise proper control over the actions of its bailiffs and the fees it charged. The bailiffs had unlawfully levied all eight accounts with the same two vehicles, failed to carry out DVLA checks on the ownership of the vehicles and charged eight statutory visit fees on two occasions for one visit by one bailiff. The Council also failed to properly investigate Mrs Smiths complaints until she complained to the Ombudsman. These faults caused Mrs Smith stress, anxiety and significant time and trouble in pursuing her complaints with the Council and the bailiffs.

From the report its clear several concerns had been raised in a complaint made to the council about its bailiff contractor to which the authority stated all actions had been reasonable. It was then escalated to stage two of the authoritys complaints procedure where the council again fobbed-off the complainant as it considered all issues had already been dealt with. The Ombudsman found there was Maladministration causing injustice, concluding the Council did not investigate or consider the complaint properly but simply agreed with the bailiffs response. It seems from the report, all aspects which the council considered unfounded were upheld by the Ombudsman.

LGO Report dated 10 July 2012 on an investigation into complaint no 11 007 684 against Blaby District Council

North East Lincolnshire Council

I personally experienced similar to the concerns raised in the LGO report into Blaby District Council with my local authority. Its bailiff contractor Rossendales, attempted to charge me fraudulent enforcement fees. The position taken by the authority is made apparent in a letter in the early stages of this particular dispute, even before formal representations had been submitted. The council had already in an email previous to this completely skirted the issues about the suspect bailiff fees Id raised in a telephone query earlier in that month.

(March 30, 2009) Your payment of 57.00 has now been received which has settled the Council Tax bill for 2008/09 payable to North East Lincolnshire Council. However, as you are already aware, there remains costs of 177.50 outstanding with Rossendales. Rossendales are entitled to pursue recovery of these costs. North East Lincolnshire Council has used Rossendales for several years and they employ certified bailiffs who operate within the law and recommended guide lines. If you have any issues with the methods used by Rossendales you should contact them to discuss the matter and arrange payment of the costs.

Although the council quotes 177.50 in its letter above, the bailiff charges totalled 262 and all had been imposed fraudulently. 42.50 covered two visits (phantom) where no evidence of either taking place existed. A fee of 25 had been unlawfully charged for secretly levying a vehicle picked at random from a residential car park. The alleged levy was not supported with legally required documentation; consequently I was unaware of this action. This fee accompanied a 110 charge for an attendance with a vehicle (with a view to removing goods), and an invented 60 charge bearing no relation to anything in the statutory fees. Finally, 24.50, the prescribed minimum charge to cover out of pocket expenses in relation to advertising levied goods was added. This fee is headed H in schedule 5 of the Council Tax Regulations , and is payable in circumstances where the appropriate amount is paid or tendered before sale of the goods, were they are then made available for collection. The levy was unlawful, the vehicle was neither mine nor had it been advertised. Finally it could not have been made available for collection because the vehicle had never been removed. Id prized out of them a limited amount of information relating to the fees but was still in the dark about what had been levied; only knowing a levy fee was added to my account. The council passed the formal complaint I submitted to the bailiff company to address, and its response was a chronology of actions it had supposedly taken to substantiate their charges. Probably the most ironic and informative element of Rossendales response was its reference to a vehicle it had allegedly levied. I had not known about this and had not even mentioned a vehicle in the complaint, only that I was querying the levy charge.

The bailiff attended your property on the 5th March 2009 and levied on a vehicle. I have enclosed copy of the Notice or Distress for your information. A levy fee and van costs were incurred in respect of this visit. A Notice of Removal was also left in a sealed envelope addressed to yourself. We have not, until now received any dispute in respect of the levy. Had the bailiff met you and it transpired that you did not own the vehicle the bailiff would have removed the same from the Notice of Distress and cancelled the costs. At this stage the bailiff was attending with a view to obtaining payment in full or to removing goods.

Aside from the arbitrary vehicle levy, theyd admitted the bailiff fraudulently applied a 110 charge for attending to remove goods on the levy visit. In all probability he would have attended in his regular transport, he would not have known what goods he might levy (if any) so to top it all he would have been charging speculatively. The next stage was dealt with by the council after Id expressed general dissatisfaction about the way Rossendales responded. Issues were raised relating to new information and it was put to the council that the first two fees where for phantom visits. The council largely reiterated what Rossendales had put in its response. It did however differ in a number of areas. For example, the council manufactured the notion that the bailiffs left correspondence on three occasions under the security door to the entrance of the property, stating Rossendales had already explained this in their response. Rossendales had not, and to reinforce the complaints procedure was a sham, a trial to pass a letter underneath the security door proved impossible. In essence no issues were resolved, the council blindly defended the bailiffs actions on the grounds it had Rossendales assurance that charges were set down in statute and they were governed by National Standards for Enforcement Agents. Many of the replies were accompanied with the statement I am not in a position to comment on.
Regarding their charges, I have been assured by Rossendales that all charges used are set down in statute.. I can advise you that Rossendale's fees are set by statute and that they are governed by National Standards for Enforcement Agents. From the information you have provided I can not uphold your complaint as Rossendales have acted within government guides lines and followed legislation correctly when setting fees.

The complaint was escalated further in an attempt to get issues taken seriously. The investigating officer arranged a meeting to discuss certain issues surrounding the complaint. He admitted the first stages were not seriously looked at and were in effect the preliminaries to gauge how serious the complainant was. The issue surrounding phantom visits was discussed. Several theories were put forward for why there was no evidence the bailiffs had called and notification was not left. The council seemed to be going to extreme lengths in avoiding reputational damage. Their creative ability seemed limitless in covering for their contractor. Even when the evidence of malpractice stared them in the face, their actions were defended. A continually evolving account of what had or might have occurred, made up their responses, and varied, depending on which officer had been assigned the job of defending Rossendales reputation. 4

Alleged bailiff action varied from letters being placed under the external security door to them being posted through the letter box. A third version speculated that they could have gone missing as they may have been left outside the entrance door to the apartment block. Had so many versions not been stated by council officers, and they bothered ensuring letters could pass under the door, they perhaps wouldnt have shown themselves to be such bare faced liars. Rossendales malpractice has been widely publicised in the press and on TV. In an ITV documentary 3 exposing the true horrors of Rossendales, one of its bailiffs caught on camera while in a supervisory role advised how best to profit from the statutory fees for visiting debtors. The trick, he revealed, was to attend unawares of the debtor, despite the purpose being to enforce the debt (steeper fees can then be added). Calling at antisocial hours reduces the danger of early settlement an outcome less profitable for the bailiff. He admitted If youre delivering a letter early, you dont knock, 4. In a later interview 5, he went on to blow the whistle on what he claimed to be wide spread malpractice in the bailiff industry where small debts become inflated to huge sums with their illegal charges. In this sworn statement to the press he admitted hed witnessed bailiffs filling in paperwork with charges for visits to homes they had not made.

....."Unlawful and excessive fees are rife. Most people do not understand the fees or how to complain and that is being utterly abused. I do not believe most of these charges could be justified in the courts," he said. Boast's sworn statement to the Sunday Times alleging widespread malpractice reveals a system vulnerable to abuse from the outset. He said initial visits to debtor's homes for which they are charged 24.50 if they owe council tax were often carried out in the middle of the night and the door would not actually be knocked so additional charges could be levied...... Other charges, including those for fabricated, or "phantom" visits. "I have sat in a cafe with other bailiffs and they fill in paperwork with charges for second visits to homes which they have not done," Boast said. "When a householder does phone to pay a bill, they are charged the fees which would have been due if they had been pursued for several months." Boast said that even when the charges were correct, it was sometimes unfair that the debtor was being pursued in the first place. He described how he pursued one debtor for Hounslow council in west London who owed 1 in council tax, but was charged court and bailiff fees of more than 160.....

The council changed its position and upheld the complaint about aspects of the levy and invented 60 fee, though considered it unreasonable to expect its appointed bailiffs be accountable for the illegal levy on the vehicle because the individual bailiff in question had left the company.
I am unable to answer your queries further as it is not possible to go any further than I have. I have exhausted all means of enquiry and now that the van bailiff in question has left the company it would not be reasonable to be able to get to the bottom of some of your queries.

3 4

ITV1s Exposure series: Bailiffs Undercover reporter reveals malpractice in the private enforcement industry The Telegraph Councils rely on 'bullying' bailiffs, 31 October 2011 5 The Sunday Times Bailiffs inflate 1 fine to 160, 08 April 2012

However, the phantom visits were defended in addition to the Head H (fee for advertising goods), which the council appears to consider a charge the bailiff is entitled to as a bonus payment for signing off the case.
The 24.50 is due to the adding of a Schedule 5 Head H fee to the account. The letter issued on the 30th March was done so upon the final debrief from the van bailiff, however, the Head H fee had not been added at this point. This fee is the final charge to be taken after all Council Tax Arrears and other bailiff fees are paid in full, however it is added to an account prior to the final payment so that the Council Tax Payer is aware of the final balance due.

The 110 attendance fee was never addressed and for some reason the investigating officer requested I accept his findings verbally. One would have to question the motives for the authority not wanting to send a documented reply including partially upheld elements of the complaint. For example, would this falsify the recorded number of upheld complaints which the LGO use to monitor performance. The next and final stage was overseen by the councils Chief Executive. The concerns were ignored grievances were referred back to previous replies and generally stated theyd been dealt with in those stages it lectured about costs incurred by the council as a consequence of having to address Rossendales criminal actions (apparently the councils inefficiency and failings were my fault) it was considered reasonable to turn a blind eye to the criminal way Rossendales carried out its enforcement, merely because the bailiffs employment had been terminated.
This is dealt with in some detail in the Stage Two response and our investigator met with you and has gone to significant trouble to establish the detail of the position. I do not uphold this part of your complaint. It is difficult to leave documents at your property. We challenged Rossendales but it is not realistic to expect them to be able to prove that the documents were left.

In general, when North East Lincolnshire council is faced with aggrieved residents complaints about its bailiff contractor Rossendales, it considers quoting something along the following lines as a one fits all magical solution to addressing their concerns:
"We have a robust policy with regard to the use of bailiffs" (Debt recovery manager) "Regular assurance is provided to the relevant Executive Director, myself and cabinet members, that the council's use of bailiffs and collection agencies is closely managed through appropriate and robust governance by the departments within the council who employ their services" (Chief Executive) "North East Lincolnshire Council has used Rossendales for several years and they employ certified bailiffs who operate within the law and recommended guide lines." (Debt recovery officer)

In an unrelated case, North East Lincolnshire council made administration errors and instructed Rossendales to collect council tax which Id already paid. It was brought to the attention of the council that Rossendales were in breach of the National Standards for Enforcement Agents which the contractor subscribes to. This was in relation to the bailiff failing to leave details of the fees. The code states that the bailiff must 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. 6

The council defended this on the grounds that complying with the code was optional as the Chief Executive confirmed in the final stage of the formal complaints procedure.

This point has already been answered in some detail as part of our stage one response, which makes it clear that these are guidelines only. These can be viewed on the following web page and includes the following statement "This national guidance does not replace local agreements, existing agency codes of practice or legislation".

The above is only partially what the National Standards states. When read in full context the councils defense of Rossendales failure to comply with the code is discredited as it selectively quoted that which advantaged the councils argument. To avoid upholding the complaint the council implied that local agreements take precedence over the National standard by selectively misquoting it, as in fact the guidelines overall point was they should be regarded as minimum standards.

This national guidance does not replace local agreements, existing agency codes of practice or legislation; rather it sets out what the Department, those in the industry and some major users regard as minimum standards.

What made this inexcusable is how the council prides itself at every opportunity that its bailiff contractor is governed by these National Standards, and for it then to state these are guidelines and not regulations as a get-out for ignoring them. When receiving criticism for malpractice the council conveniently deems the National Standards to be only guidelines. It has not gone unnoticed however, that when promoting their reputation in the media, the fact "they are governed by the National Standard for Enforcement Agents" is exploited to the full, as per a news report in the Grimsby Telegraph 6.

On the appointment of bailiffs, the spokesman for North East Lincolnshire Council said: Rossendales are the appointed bailiffs for North East Lincolnshire Council for the collection of unpaid council tax. They are governed by the National Standard for Enforcement Agents. The council does not pay for Rossendales service, but a service agreement is in place and, as such, the company is accountable to the council. The council only passes on debts to Rossendales as a very last resort."

These are a sample of quotes, I hope will demonstrate the manner in which North East Lincolnshire council addresses difficult issues raised both in connection with its bailiff contractor and the negligent way it conducts its investigation in formal complaints.

Grimsby Telegraph, January 04, 2011 Over 2,000 fewer people caught dodging council tax in past year

"Please be informed that North East Lincolnshire Council will not enter into any further dialogue with you regarding this matter." Your scatter gun approach of sending the same request to numerous officers and councillors is taking up a disproportionate amount of officer time and is, unfairly for the other citizens of N.E.Lincolnshire, diverting resource from the provision of the services we provide. Should you continue with this approach I will have no option but to ask that staff across the council do not respond to any further requests regarding this issue. I can make you aware that North East Lincolnshire Council will not be raising your concerns as a formal complaint and will not enter into further dialogue regarding the issues you have raised. Thank you for your email. It is clearly in response to the stage 3 findings and is not in relation to a new complaint. We will not therefore be taking any further action. As stated in the stage 3 response you still have the option to take your issues to the Local Government Ombudsman. Your original complaint has been closed and North East Lincolnshire Council does not intend to make representations at the County Court under Regulation 8 of the distress for Rent Rules 1988. If you wish to pursue this course of action further then you are within your rights to contact the County Court yourself, where you can put your complaint forward.

This is testament to the councils formal complaint process merely being an exercise in giving complainants the brush-off and having no other objective than to determine any grievances as unfounded. Investigating itself is unlikely to be executed in a fair and unbiased way and can only lead to the council seeking to protect itself from legal challenge, which makes a case all the more for these complaints to be conducted independently.

Huntingdonshire District council

Documenting a series of events, played out on the bailiff forum of the Consumer Action Group 7, this follows exactly the same protocol that increasing evidence suggests is standard practice for local authorities shirking responsibility for the criminal actions of their bailiff contractors. The account payer was put under pressure to pay the entire years council tax liability after the authority withdrew the facility to pay by instalments. The council obstructed the defendant from appearing before the court to make a payment arrangement which is an infringement of an individuals human rights. A complaint was made to the council about why, after receiving a summons, he was refused a hearing before Magistrates to put forward his case. He was told that the court wasnt involved and would need to contact the council to agree a payment arrangement.

At court you were told that the Magistrates cannot take your financial circumstances into consideration, or agree a payment arrangement, and so you were advised to contact the council if you wanted to discuss time to pay.

The complaint was not upheld but the procedure was exploited by the authoritys Local Taxation Manager as an opportunity to threaten further recovery action, which in this case would be to instruct the councils bailiff contractor. The council was lying and being obstructive even before it began defending fees its bailiff contractor was about to fraudulent impose, as every householder has the right to attend the hearing and appear before Magistrates in accordance with Article 6 (right to a fair trial) of the Human Rights Act 1998. A liability order was obtained and the account passed to Newlyn bailiffs. However, the council tax outstanding was paid to the authority and the account cleared at which point enforcement should have ceased. Instead the bailiffs continued making visits and added charges to the account to the tune of 162.50. They effectively used the liability order to enforce payment for its visit made prior to payment being made to the council. This is unlawful as the liability order is obtained by the authority to enforce council tax liability. Besides which, the account payer offered to settle the charge in respect of the first visit but the bailiff refused payment. One of the charges incurred after the bill was settled was a fee for levying a vehicle. Bailiffs are not permitted to pursue payment for their fees alone, but regardless of this, the taxpayers car was used for business purposes, i.e., his livelihood and exempt from a levy. Documents were sent recorded delivery to Newlyns office (it would be discovered the bailiff levied a random car). The bailiff claimed he could clamp the car and release it only on receipt of payment, though admitted he was not allowed to remove it (also unlawful).

Consumer Action Group Bailiffs and High Court Enforcement Officers

The MP for Huntingdon was contacted in October 2012 who then contacted the council, escalating the complaint to the next stage of the procedure. The MP replied 19 October and was satisfied with Huntingdonshire District councils response which stated the complainant was liable for the bailiffs fraudulent fees. The MP went so far as suggesting these should be paid as soon as possible particularly remarkable when the MP had been the Under Secretary of State for Justice and headed the launch of a full public consultation on transforming bailiff action. The complainant was dissatisfied with the response and detailed this in an email to the council in November, raising a number of concerns including the unprofessional way staff members dealt with enquiries the legality of the judicial process as he was denied the opportunity of presenting his case before the bench the bailiffs threatening to clamp his vehicle, and receiving neither notice that the bailiffs would be instructed nor the liability order letter. The 14 November 2012 reply contained the defensive, sarcastic, arrogant and more importantly factually incorrect guff which is typical in these responses.

During each conversation, the Assistants appear to have given you correct advice, although I understand that this advice, and the decisions that they made are not what you hoped to hear.. I assume you believed that she would agree to your demands if you continued the conversation long enough.. See the letter sent to you by Mr ***, on 16th August, which explains the position. The Magistrates are not able to hear pleas about financial standing. Legally, we are not required to prove that notices are received, as long as they have been posted to the correct address. A bailiff has the power to remove a vehicle owned by a debtor. If the vehicle is used as a "tool of his trade" e.g. as a licensed taxi, then the bailiff will not remove the vehicle. However, the debtor must prove that to the bailiff, otherwise he may remove it and sell it at public auction. The law does not prevent the bailiff from disabling (clamping) the vehicle until the debtor proves that it is a tool of his trade. In his letter to you (16th August), Mr **** urged you to contact the bailiff to make payment. As you decided not to cooperate with the bailiff, they have had to make additional visits to your property, and additional fees have been incurred..

The council held its position that the taxpayer had no entitlement to appear before Magistrates. Its comments in regards clamping, whether or not factual were beside the point due to the debt being settled several weeks before the levy, which for the same reason made its lecture about cooperating with the bailiffs nonsense. Newlyns were asked to itemise all charges making up the 162.50 total, along with the dates each was incurred. The National Standards were breached in this regard as it requires this information is left with each visit that incurs a charge.

10

The charges were itemised in a letter dated 3 December 2012.

December 3 2012 We would like to confirm that all fees have been raised and applied correctly in accordance with The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 Regulation 45 (As Amended). Please find below a breakdown of debt and fees as requested: Council Debt: Visit fee 1: Visit fee 2: Levy fees: Attendance to remove fee: xx.xx 24.50 18.00 20.00 100.00 1st October 2012 9th October 2012 12th November 2012 12th November 2012

The councils bailiff contractor went on to explain the charges, very much in general terms using their own interpretation rather than the legally defined provisions in the schedule of fees 8. The most creative and outrageous account was how the firm chose to interpret the attendance to remove fee:
Attendance to remove: Once a levy has been performed, no more visits are performed. Any further attendances to the property are considered attendances with a van and as such you are charged accordingly to the fee structure.

The fee is headed C in schedule 5 of the Council Tax Regulations, and is intended to cover out of pocket expenses for attending with a vehicle but must be made with a view to the removal of goods so an enforcement agent would need to arrive, in say, a removal van for example, if bulky items such as furniture were listed on the Notice of Seizure, or a breakdown recovery truck, if a vehicle had been levied. The letter also revealed the item levied was a vehicle. It is legally required to leave a Notice of Distress when levying goods. The Newlyn bailiff had not done this, though an alleged copy was later produced by the council for the purpose of verifying that the bailiff had levied a vehicle which did not belong the account payer. Only a REMOVAL OF GOODS NOTICE had been left advising the bailiff had attended with the intention of removing possessions as were necessary to discharge the debt and would re-attend within 24 hrs and may remove goods even in your absence. It was also likely the bailiff used a pseudonym as the name on the notice was not on the certificated bailiff register. Both Newlyns and the council refused to name the bailiff when requested in subsequent complaints. The potential to exploit attendance fees (both levy and removal), would be why the LGO took an unusually critical view of a local authority in a 1997 report9. Its investigation focussed on complaints into bailiffs charging the fee without first having levied goods. The Department of the Environment 10, Secretary of the CBA 11 and Head of Revenue at

8 9

Schedule 5 of the The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 Charges connected with Distress LGO Report on an investigation into complaint nos 95A01890 & 95A04826 against London Borough of Ealing 10 Now Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) 11 Certificated Bailiffs Association, now ESA (Enforcement Services Association)

11

CIPFA 12 agreed unanimously that the charge should not have been made unless distress had first been levied. The bailiff firms solicitor, after being consulted on the matter, concluded that no charge for removal was due. Documents were also sent to the council proving his car was a tool of his trade. It refused to resolve the matter and stated Newlyn must be paid to avoid the council adding this amount to the following years liability. The council replied again on December 17, responding to new concerns raised after Newlyns supplied details of its actions. It continued defending its bailiff contractor, stating the charges were legally correct and reasonable.
The fees have been checked by the Local Taxation Team, and they are satisfied that they have been legally incurred. The basis of the fees has been explained in previous correspondence and by Newlyn in their letter of 3 December. Rather than harassing you, the bailiff is merely attempting to enforce payment of legally incurred fees as allowed for under the powers granted by the issue of the Liability Order.. From earlier correspondence you will be aware the Local Taxation Section has checked the fees that have been incurred and advised you that you should contact the bailiff to stop those fees from increasing. You have not done so. Having reviewed this case on three separate occasions, I am of the opinion that you are attempting to evade payment of the legitimately incurred bailiff fees, and have put obstacles in the way two internal complaints, one via Jonathan Djanogly MP, and a fourth via Newlyn Plc in the hope that you will not be required to pay. In conclusion, I believe that the actions that have been taken, and the bailiff fees that have been incurred, are legally correct and reasonable.

Still aggrieved by the continued defence of the fraudulent fees, the complainant requested further clarification. On 3 January 2013 the council explained why Newlyns continued enforcement after the debt was settled. In its response it also inadvertently raised the possibility that the vehicle was not the account holders.
You made a payment on 3rd October 2012, in response to the bailiffs first visit on 1st October 2012. The fee of 24.50 was correctly incurred. The second visit fee was added due to your failure to pay the fee incurred during the first visit.. Bailiff action will cease once you pay the fees. The fees have increased because of your decision not to pay, and currently stand at 162.50.. The first visit fee has still not been paid. Methods of payment were provided to you at the time that the fee was incurred, but you chose not to make payment. This led to a second visit being made and a further fee (18.00) being incurred. Your continued decision, not to make payment, has led to the additional fees being charged. No proof has been provided to the council. If you provide proof that you do not own the vehicle, then we will instruct the bailiff to remove the levy fee of 20.

12

Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy

12

The council stuck to its guns and continued lying about the bailiffs entitlement to the fees. Had outstanding monies been paid to the bailiff, Newlyns would have been entitled to take their fees first, potentially leaving an amount outstanding. Should those have been the circumstances, he may well have been entitled to continue enforcing, but because payment was made to the authority direct, the liability was settled. It was of no consequence who the levied vehicle belonged nor whether it was used to earn a living, the taxpayer was unnecessarily being made to jump through hoops. It was enough that enforcement should have ceased when payment was made in full before the second attendance. However, the council subsequently revealed (DVLA check) that the vehicle was not the debtors and as a consequence would remove the levy and attendance fee leaving a balance of 42.50. This was in respect of the initial two visits; the second, made after the debt was settled and the first for which the bailiff had already refused an offer of payment. Huntingdonshire District council had not deducted and forwarded bailiff fees to Newlyns. If they had, this may have created a deficit. That may not have been lawful anyway unless the amount paid was over and above the outstanding debt doing that would be a blatant misuse of taxpayer's money.
At this stage, I would suggest that you either make payment of 42.50 to Newlyn Plc, or ask the Local Government Ombudsman to consider whether there has been any maladministration in dealing with your case.

After the 3rd October the bailiffs were enforcing for their fees, not the debt on the liability order as that had been cleared. The council later produced an alleged copy of the legally required Notice of Distress listing a vehicle not belonging the taxpayer which at best proves the bailiff levied an arbitrary vehicle or may have been created as a means to substantiate that their actions were lawful.

13

Mid Sussex District council

This case sees the intransigence of councils pushed to new heights were not only is the authority refusing to admit their fault in issuing a liability order erroneously, but claim that their enforcement contractor had acted reasonably after illegally forcing entry and assaulting the debtor and subsequently imposing fraudulent fees. To briefly summarise, Mid Sussex District Council instructed Rossendales bailiffs to enforce a liability order for a debt which had already been paid. These circumstances had come about because of administrative errors where council tax payments were allocated to the wrong account. On one of the visits, two bailiffs attended, one remaining just outside the property while the other forced entry, where, as described by the victim, the following events took place.
I did not see the actual entry, I was upstairs and came running down when I heard the rumpus, my husband and son aged 28 now, were downstairs just inside the front door, they were on their way out, when it happened. The door was flung open, damage to door frame, large boot mark on the bottom half of the door. Not sure if husband, aged 70, was actually hit by the door or lost his balance trying to avoid it, when I arrived he was getting up. Because of the way the door is I couldn't see them so walked up and opened the door to see who it was and what they wanted. One was just outside the door with his foot in the door, the other was standing just inside the front door leaning up against the door frame in a position to prevent the door from being closed. I walked up and was about to say what do you want, never got the chance, the one outside punched me in the chest with a closed fist and said 'now you know we mean business' this is the only time that one assaulted me but was probably the worst and most painful part. The other one who was just inside just laid into me, I had finger marks across my cheek and a swollen face from where he hit me, I had 17 finger mark bruises on one arm alone where he kept grabbing me, other bruises on the other arm, around my hip area and my thighs, big bruises on the legs, knee and shins where he kicked me. This went on for what felt like ages, the police took about 45 minutes to come apparently. My husband saw the one outside take hold of the elbow of the one inside and shake his head, he knew it had gone too far, I took a swing at the one inside and managed to slap him lightly on the cheek. When the police arrived they immediately saw most of my bruises and I told the police that I slapped one of them, when she looked at the bailiff she couldn't see anything and took him outside into the daylight to have a proper look and came back laughing saying that she thought that she may be able to see very faint redness. He said that I had pulled a button off his shirt and my husband and WPC were on their hands and knees looking for it but couldn't find it. This one button had turned into 2 by the time he made his statement and into 5 by the time he gave evidence in Court! I had a new phone and could not get it going to phone the police, password etc the bailiff inside was trying desperately to get my phone off me and really had a go. I understand now that it was important to them that they phoned first. Unknown to me my son dialed 999 and said that 2 men had broken into our house and were assaulting his mother, he was the first to phone. When we got to Court the bailiffs both said they phoned first, the police notes showed that my son phoned first but the magistrates didn't believe that! In Court the bailiffs said that they had been assaulted by me but the worst thing for them is that I was so deceitful and lied to get them into trouble. The bailiffs refused to leave after my husband and my son asked them to. When the police arrived, loads of them, a WPC took charge and sent all but one away. That's how scary I was! She was very helpful and I am not sure what would have happened without her that day but I now know that she did completely the wrong thing and after making a statement about it all a few days later she made another one saying the complete opposite! Obviously got at! She let the bailiffs in. I went upstairs to print off bank statements to show payments had been made and then phoned the Council thinking this would be the

14

end of the matter, they didn't want to discuss it, obstructive etc I insisted I was not going to get off the phone until they did and said I have a houseful of police here and this WPC was looking at my bank statements and could see the payments. WPC then got on her phone and my husband on his in case they put the phone down on me and we couldn't get through again, MSDC were desperate to do this. WPC phoned Horsham Council for some advice, both Councils linked in some way and after about 1.5 hours of being passed around my payments were found they had been 'allocated to the wrong account' I thought then that it was all over but was then told that as it was in the bailiffs hands they couldn't do anything! Both me and WPC kept on and told them to transfer those payments to where they should be and eventually and very reluctantly they did. We then insisted that they told the bailiffs who refused to believe any of this. Bailiffs phoned MSDC and were told everything was OK, end of. WPC then told them to go but they refused. They said that I had to pay 322.80 in fees before they left. I immediately asked what for as they should not have been there anyway etc but they totally refused to leave. The WPC said to me that the police had been tied up at my house for ages and they needed to go, she didn't want to leave me there with the bailiffs and that I was exhausted and I should just pay to get rid of them and contact MSDC and claim it back, and still protesting this is what I did on a card and I got a receipt. I had no idea what this was for and had at that stage never heard of a levy and no one mentioned it. After endless arguments with MSDC between then, July 2011, until December 2011 I finally got a levy, I have several different variations of this! I will attach it (Annex A). Since then I have had letters saying my account is clear and many saying I owe varying amounts of CT and this week I have had loads of letters and emails saying I owe, 40.00, 100.00 and 600 and something!

Rossendales imposed three separate charges totaling 322 which were additional to two incurred on previous visits. A 62 levy fee, one of 130 for attending with a van and another for the same amount described as a waiting fee were all imposed in relation to that call.
Waiting fee: Van attendance fee Levy fees: Payment by D/card: 130.00 130.00 62.00 1.60 19th July 2011 08:34am 19th July 2011 08:34am 19th July 2011 08:34am 10th May (0.80p) & 19th July (0.80p)

The fees charged on the 19th July relate to a visit on the 18th July between the times of 3.48pm to 6.51pm The date of all this was actually 18th July 2011 at about 3.00pm!!

Even if there had been money owed, all three charges were unlawful, not only because of the forced entry and assault, but for a several other reasons. The legally required documents were not left to support the levy, the bailiffs were not in a position to have levied goods anyway. A bailiff is required to give notice if he were to remove goods following a valid levy, so a fee for attending with a vehicle to remove goods can not be charged on the same day of a levy. There is no allowable fee for waiting, neither listed as prescribed nor those simply stated as being "reasonable" in the legislation. On requesting the Regulations under which the charges could be legally charged, the council made assurances they were lawful after consulting its contractor.

15

The same replies were reiterated for months with no satisfactory answers to support the claims that their charges were lawful. The levy alleged to have made in July 2011 was eventually produce after several months requesting details. Only one item on the bailiffs inventory matched goods in the property. Given it was a TV, hed have been unlucky guessing that wrong, but he wasnt so lucky guessing the right make (Annex A). An email sent by Mid Sussex Councils Enforcement and Collection Manager almost a year after the assault, categorically states that the three unlawfully imposed charges totaling more than 300, were lawful.
(15th June 2012) Dear Mrs .. Council Tax Thank you for your letter dated 13th June 2012. We are fully aware of the fees charged by rossendales and, once again confirm to you they are lawful. Mr Bates clearly indicated in his email to you the regulations that govern all fees charged. The fees amounting to 322.80 charged by rossendales are lawful and, therefore, not refundable to you. Yours sincerely CenSus Enforcement and Collection Manager

The fraudulent charges were only a part of the issues surrounding this fiasco. While the victim was getting nowhere with the council, the bailiffs were influencing the police and Magistrates that it was they, in fact, who had been assaulted. The police took the bailiffs side and Magistrates found the victim guilty of assaulting both bailiffs at the October 2011 hearing. The decision was appealed and focus continued on challenging the fraudulent bailiff charges while awaiting a date for the Crown Court hearing. Nothing changed as the council still stubbornly refused to agree its contractor fraudulently obtains money from its residents. Another email clearly shows their position on this.
(7 September 2012) Dear Mrs Your email addressed to Cllr Gary Marsh has been passed to my office to investigate. I apologise for the delay in responding and appreciate your patience. My records indicate that you raised the matter of bailiff fees in June 2012, and that my response at that time was that the fees were legally and correctly charged by rossendales bailiffs. Having reviewed this matter again, in light of your email below, I can confirm that the position remains unaltered. The fees charged by Rossendales are legal and have been correctly charged.

Councillor Marsh never did answer and Andrew MacNaughton, the other local Councillor, after weeks of being chased for a reply, responded through the Council expressing that he doesn't get involved in individual cases.

16

The unwillingness of the councils Enforcement Manager to cooperate took the authoritys obstruction to a new level. In the hope something would reveal what administration errors led to Rossendales being instructed and the subsequent assault and fraudulent charging, a Subject Access Request was submitted under the Data Protection Act to obtain all personal information the council held. Almost none of the emails materialised when the information arrived. As a consequence of one Manager involved in the dispute leaving his post, all emails had been deleted. It was a normal procedure, they said, that in these circumstances, the emails of the member would be deleted before he left. There was no correspondence between the council and bailiffs or the police, neither had details of the formal complaint been sent. The appeal was successful in the Crown Court and the conviction quashed in December 2012. It was determined that the Magistrates at the initial hearing wrongly convicted her. The Judge found that she had not assaulted the two bailiffs but had used reasonable force to remove them from her property. The reason both MSDC and Rossendales gave for waiting months to answer letters and give information was that this was still sub judice and they couldn't get involved until that was resolved, they are still saying that now. On receiving news of the outcome, the victim wrote to the council in connection with the unlawful charges made by Rossendales of over 300, insisting that the full amount was refunded. However, the councils position still hadnt changed; it was still defending Rossendales unlawful charges. There is a serious case of the tail wagging the dog, as too much reliance is put on what 'Rossendales said' which seems to be the Councils answer to everything.
(13th December 2012) Further to your email of 11th December 2012. I believe that Rossendale's have legally and correctly charged fees, in accordance with the Council Tax Regulations. Enclosed is a copy of my letter to you dated 19th September 2012, which sets out the Councils position in this matter.

The decision to quash the conviction in the Crown Court didnt alter the councils preferred view that the original Magistrates decision was the correct one. An article appearing in a local publication 13 makes it clear that nothing will reverse this councils decision once made.

(20th December 2012) A council spokesperson said: 'The simple fact of the matter is Mrs Xxxx did not pay her Council tax and the council was awarded a Liability Order by the courts This court hearing was about an alleged assault by Mrs Xxxx on a debt collector, not the other way round 'When making a case for her defence Mrs Xxxx has made serious allegations about the conduct of the bailiffs who visited her last year and we strongly dispute her version of events The council oversaw a thorough investigation into what happened that day and have found no evidence to support Mrs Xxxx's claims

13

Mid Sussex Times Woman clears name in dispute with bailiffs, 20 December 2012

17

Contrary to what the spokesperson said, the defendant didn't really make a case for her defence, she didn't actually have any opportunity to say anything. The Judge read the evidence and the bailiffs statements and just chucked it out, there is usually a whole retrial for an Appeal, unusual not to, but the Judge was just not having any of it and made that very clear, he had the prosecutor squirming with embarrassment. She was in fact a 62 year old woman no criminal record or any involvement in anyway with the police, she says:
I am not skinny but still about half the size of both bailiffs, I was in my own home I was not roaming the streets looking for two men to beat up.

The two bailiffs one half her age have both been accused in the past of violence, intimidation etc., and for unlawful fees, (what would be considered fraud for the rest of us). Not just in the case of MSDC but other areas. Both have admitted forced entry in detail. As for the council overseeing a thorough investigation into what happened that day she asked for a copy of the report. Mid Sussex District Council told her they were not involved at all; it was between her and the bailiffs and they have no details of the investigation. This is at odds with recent information discovered, relating to the Subject Access Request. The documents which have been arriving in dribs and drabs reveal that they were involved; the investigation was carried out in August 2011 but they obviously wanted to keep this secret. What probably wasnt uncovered in Mid Sussex Councils thorough investigation was a report published in a local newspaper 14 involving one of the two bailiffs. While enforcing payment for Eastbourne Borough Council, Rossendales agreed to refund charges of 205 incurred for a single bailiff visit and held an internal investigation into the incident. It was reported that the bailiff drove to the victims property, blocked his drive, demanded the money and his fee immediately and was aggressive to the point of violence.

14

Eastbourne Herald Council bailiff slammed for 'heavy tactics', 30 April 2008

18

Annex A Rossendales Notice of Distress

19

Annex B Freedom of Information Request to MSDC

1. Following my Appeal against conviction which was granted on 15th December 2012 when three Crown Court Judges believed my version of events 'in entirety' on the day in 2011 when your bailiffs Albert Rosz and Bashir Joseph Nurpetlian visited my house rather than their version, will the Mid Sussex District Council have a further 'thorough investigation' into this matter now that there is this very important Court decision in the matter?

Following a visit from the police on the day in question, the CPS brought charges which alleged that Mrs Xxxx had assaulted a bailiff. These charges were not instigated by Mid Sussex District Council or Rossendales; therefore, we will not be conducting an investigation into this alleged assault.

2. What steps will Mid Sussex District Council be taking now that this Court decision confirms that your bailiffs have lied?

See the answer to question 1 above.

3. Will Mid Sussex District be taking some action against Rosz and Nerpetlian, maybe a Form 5 complaint to their certifying Court?

Please see the answer to question 1, the alleged assault wasnt taken to court by either Mid Sussex District Council or Rossendales.

4. I would like confirmation that Nurpetlian had a valid certificate during the time he acted as an agent for Mid Sussex District Council?

We have received confirmation from Rossendales that Nupetlian did have a valid certificate during this time.
5. I would like all the following details about the Mid Sussex District Council's agents Rossendales: How many different bailiffs from Rossendales are used by Mid Sussex District Council?

During the time Rossendales have acted as Mid Sussex agents, they have used twelve different bailiffs.

6. How many different bailiffs from other bailiff firms are used?

We use one other bailiff company who have used 3 different bailiffs in the Mid Sussex area.

6. Will Mid Sussex District be taking some action against Rosz and Nerpetlian, maybe a Form 5 complaint to their certifying Court?

Please see the answer to question 1, the alleged assault wasnt taken to court by either Mid Sussex District Council or Rossendales.

7. Following How many complaints have been received by Mid Sussex District Council about bailiffs from Rossendales and other suppliers?

20 complaints received since 2010, concerning bailiffs

20

8. How many complaints have been received about Rosz?

no complaints have been received specifically naming Rosz.

9. How many complaints have been received about Nepetlian?

two complaints, one of which is from you

10. Of all bailiff complaints received what was the nature of the complaint:

Intimidating, threatening or violent behaviour Forcing entry? Refusing to leave when asked? Ultra vires claims? Ignoring persons who fall into the 'vulnerable' category? Overcharging and unlawful fees? Unlawful levies?

7 0 0 0 0 4 8

The numbers above total 19 of the 20 complaints, the final complaint from yourself, covers all of the areas listed above.

21