North East Lincolnshire Council

Municipal Offices,
Town Hall Square
Grimsby
North East Lincolnshire
DN31 1HU

Grimsby
North East Lincolnshire

10 August 2016
Dear Mr Oxby

Re: False statement to defraud through council tax liability application

I have copied you in on some emails in relation to a crime I have been a victim of, concerning
principally the subsequent failure of the council to properly address the matter. I therefore
assume you are aware that I consider the Chief Executive and Monitoring Officers to be
complicit in the councils fraudulent actions against me.
To recap, the Council obtained a liability order from the Magistrates court to enforce payment of
my Council Tax account (2015/16) despite payments being up to date and therefore no monies
owed. Evidence, which has been provided to the Council, proves beyond all doubt that the
authority fraudulently obtained the court order by lying in a witness statement to the court.
However, the Councils monitoring officer has made it categorically clear that he is satisfied with
the findings of the audit teams review of the allegations, i.e., that it found no evidence that any
fraudulent activity has taken place.
The Monitoring Officer must ensure that the Council, its Officers and Councillors maintain the
highest standards of conduct, but by endorsing the findings of a sham investigation with the
outcome geared so obviously for the purpose of protecting the guilty parties, he has clearly
failed to do this.
It was confirmed by Mr Maione that the matter would be looked into by the Councils Internal
Audit team, led by Mr Hanmer (Head of Audit and Assurance, Northern Lincolnshire Business
Connect). This raised uncertainty as to whether the audit team comprised the listed members
of the Councils Audit and Governance Committee or an outsourced service, implied by Mr
Hanmers title adjunct, i.e., Northern Lincolnshire Business Connect. However, a request made
to find out whether he was an employee of the Council or if he offered his services out of an
independent company was unsuccessful as the Council refused to answer.
The matter is equally serious whether the work of a contractor or an in-house team, though if
elected members were covering up fraud to the detriment of a resident it was a greater matter of
public importance for those details to be disclosed.
The Council also refused to name those referred to who made up the 'audit team' and whether
they were elected members, and would not disclose copies of correspondence, court papers
etc., which were claimed to have been reviewed. The names of those referred to as 'key
officers' who were claimed to have been interviewed were similarly refused.

There is no doubt that the Council has acted dishonestly and made use of the Magistrates court
criminally to obtain a liability order with the responsibility ultimately lying with the Monitoring
Officer and Chief Executive. Though the authority will not identify those responsible for
investigating the allegations, it is reasonable to expect, if councillors, that they stand down over
this bogus scrutiny. It is nothing less than fraudulent for elected members to claim expenses
from residents who elect them in good faith to be represented, who are then betrayed.
A string of failures of the Chief Executive and Monitoring Officers over a number of years have
materially contributed to the gross injustice suffered in this matter. In the most recent case
concerning perjury and fraud allegations, the Monitoring Officer failed to act impartially in the
interests of fair and natural justice. There is no question that the investigation was a sham, an
assertion reinforced by Mr Maione stating he would not respond to further emails, and Mr
Hanmer, that he would not be corresponding further on the issue when he was asked for details
of the investigation. Since he has confirmed that a detailed investigation was carried out and all
relevant correspondence etc. had been reviewed, but would not when asked provide any proof,
how could it be viewed in any other way than a sham?
With regard the Chief Executives failure in November 2015 and March 2014, formal
complaints alleged that the council fraudulently obtained a liability order from the court. The
matter should have been referred to the Corporate Fraud team, but instead (in both cases) the
Chief Executive endorsed the investigating officer's reports, declaring that he had considered
the findings of the investigations to have been correctly and fairly carried out. By signing off the
complaints he took responsibility for them and therefore knew that the complaints concerned
fraud but nevertheless turned a blind eye by not referring the matter to the appropriate
committee for investigation.
I have appended correspondence in chronological order for your assistance in relation to the
most recent events. It will be evident on reading the account that the cause of the gross
injustice which has protracted over a wholly unacceptable period is attributed to Revenues &
Benefits staff being allowed to abuse their positions in pursuit of personal vendettas,
compounded by statutorily appointed senior officers then failing to take responsibility, which
would have been by carrying out appropriate action for the serious misconduct.
I consider this matter so serious as to require an investigation into misconduct in public office of
the two officers concerned, and with regards any elected member complicit in the sham
investigation, they should be dealt with in accordance with the relevant disciplinary provision for
their misconduct.

Yours sincerely

Page 1 of 2

From:
To:
Cc:
Sent:
Attach:
Subject:

<
@gmail.com>
<peter.hanmer@nelincs.gov.uk>
<Tony.Maione@Nelincs.gov.uk>; <rob.walsh@nelincs.gov.uk>; "Res - Customer Services" <ResCustomerServices@nelincs.gov.uk>
21 April 2016 13:00
7 Nov 2015 - ocj-complaint-0913.pdf; Perjury to Commit Fraud - 2 Dec 15.pdf; Section 1
Magistrates court complaint - draft.pdf
False statement to defraud through council tax liability application

Dear Mr Hanmer

False statement to defraud through council tax liability application

North East Lincolnshire Council is already aware through being alerted in a formal complaint regarding one of
it's employees (Court Enforcement officer) committing a fraud offence against me.
In brief, the council made an application to Grimsby Magistrates' court to obtain a Council Tax liability order
relating to Council Tax (2015/16). Payments were made in sufficient amount to meet the legal obligation to
pay the sums set out on the demand notice and so my account was never in arrears.
The Council engineered a 'non-payment' scenario, by allocating monies to a disputed sum which related to a
previous year's account that was under appeal to the High Court. That sum was suspended pending the
court's decision which has yet to be concluded. The council allocate monies to the wrong account
attributing that decision to believing that the sum was no longer being disputed because the appeal had been
withdrawn. I have evidence to support that this claim (included in the witness statement) was untrue, not on
account of it never being withdrawn (though it hasn't), but specifically because it is beyond all reasonable
doubt that the council knew it had not been withdrawn. The council officer had therefore wilfully made a
statement material in the proceeding, which he knew was not true.
The Corporate Feedback procedure was evidently not the appropriate avenue to have the criminal element of
my complaint dealt with as the Council flatly refused to address it, asserting that the concerns raised fell
outside the scope of the complaints process. The Chief Executive, Rob Walsh must be ultimately responsible
as he is aware of the criminal allegations and has not, to my knowledge, acted on them. The letter
accompanying the final response to the complaint signed by the Chief Executive contained the following
statement (Ref: NEL/1172/1516):
"The enclosed investigating officer's report details the findings of this investigation which I consider has
been correctly and fairly carried out in accordance with the Council's Feedback Policy."
I have since made enquiries into the Councils policy on fraud and now aware of the approach it takes in
dealing with these matters. I have accessed the relevant documents, whistleblowing policy, anti fraud
framework and the fraud response plan etc. Given that my complaint alleged fraud and the council refused to
address it, details should have been referred to the Audit, Risk, Insurance and Corporate Fraud team
immediately in accordance with the 'Fraud Response Plan' (see relevant para below):
"Complaints officers should consider all allegations of irregularity that may be included in a complaint or
comment and refer all cases to the Audit, Risk, Insurance and Corporate Fraud team immediately on
receipt. Allegations of this nature should be treated through this policy rather than the corporate
complaints procedure as the timetable for investigating and reporting on complaints does not apply to
complaints of financial misconduct."
I assume the policy was not adhered to as I've not been notified of commencement of an investigation or
whether the matter has been referred to the police. However, I suspect the council has not informed the police
as my own contact with the force has led to no evidence that that is the case.
Though it is unlikely any action has been taken concerning this matter, I would like informing of what steps the
council has taken, if in fact I have assumed wrongly.
In any event, please take this email as an instruction for an investigation to be carried out in accordance with
the council's whistleblowing policy. For your information I have instituted proceedings pursuant to s.1 of the

06/08/2016

Page 2 of 2

Magistrates' courts Act 1980 in this matter and a hearing is set for 29 April 2016 for the evidence to be
considered by the court.
In addition, please find attached documents (listed below) which when accompanied by the council's witness
statement and exhibit documents, re 30 October 2015 court hearing, will be all the evidence required. In
accordance with the council's Fraud Response Plan I would expect, subject to legal constraints, that I'm
informed about how the matter is being addressed.
Attached Documents
1. Perjury to Commit Fraud - 2 Dec 15
2. 7 Nov 2015 ocj-complaint-0913 (See from heading Annex A to C)
3. Section 1 Magistrates court complaint - draft
Yours sincerely

06/08/2016

Ref: / /

IN THE MATTER OF ALLEGATIONS OF

PERJURY TO COMMIT FRAUD AND
PERVERTING THE COURSE OF JUSTICE

IN THE GRIMSBY MAGISTRATES COURT

CIVIL JURISDICTION

STATEMENT

Below is the list of supporting documents (SD) which accompany this statement. It is
important that all are to hand, and a copy requested in the case of any missing document. SDs
#1 to #24 relate directly to this matter and those which are relevant but not specifically
referred to are a numbered #25 to #31 in the list and relate to previous concerns raised with
Humberside police on a similar theme.

LIST OF SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS (SD)

No #

DATE

DESCRIPTION

FILE NAME

1 Oct 2015

Defendants representations proof of

payment; summons costs

Defendants Grounds of
Appeal.pdf

6 May 2015

High court Judgment in the matter of an

appeal of Council Tax court summons costs

R (on the application of

Reverend Nicolson) v
Tottenham Magistrates.doc

22 July 2013

Draft case stated for appeal to the high court

Case stated Draft.pdf

16 Oct 2015

NELC (Claimant) - Witness Statement

Alan French - Witness

Statement.pdf

16 Oct 2015

Claimants Exhibit 1 (Defendants 2015/16

Council Tax bill)

NELC1.pdf

16 Oct 2015

Claimants Exhibit 2 (Council Tax reminder)

NELC2.pdf

16 Oct 2015

Claimants Exhibit 3 (Council Tax second

reminder)

NELC3.pdf

16 Oct 2015

Claimants Exhibit 4 (Council Tax final

notice)

NELC4.pdf

16 Oct 2015

Claimants Exhibit 5 (Council Tax summons)

NELC5.pdf

10

16 Oct 2015

Claimants Exhibit 6 (Peters v Anderson case law)

NELC6.pdf

11

16 Oct 2015

Claimants Exhibit 7 (Devaynes v Noble case law)

NELC7.pdf

12

16 Oct 2015

Claimants Exhibit 8 (Cory Brothers & Co - NELC8.pdf

case law)

13

16 Oct 2015

Claimants Exhibit 9 (Defendants email to

Claimant)

NELC9.pdf

14

16 Oct 2015

Claimants Exhibit 10 (Extract from Bailiff

help forum)

NELC10.pdf

15

16 Oct 2015

Claimants Exhibit 11 (Extract from Legal

Beagle forum)

NELC11.pdf

16

16 Oct 2015

Claimants Exhibit 12 (Contents of letters to

and from Admin Court Office at Leeds)

NELC12.pdf

17

16 Oct 2015

Claimants Exhibit 13 (Leeson v Leeson case law)

NELC13.pdf

18

29 Oct 2015

Defendants representations appropriation

of payments; evidence of costs appealed

Defendants (Supplementary)
Grounds of Appeal.pdf

19

Chronology (case bundle draft document high court application)

Case Stated Chronology

draft.pdf

20

Consent order (case bundle draft document high court application)

Case Stated Consent order

draft.pdf

21

Grounds of appeal (case bundle draft

document - high court application)

Case Stated Grounds of

appeal draft.pdf

22

Skeleton Argument (case bundle draft

document - high court application)

Case Stated Skeleton

Argument draft.pdf

23

2 Sept 2014

Complaint to Advisory Committee

(Magistrates / Justices Clerks conduct)

Judicial complaint 2 Sept

2014.pdf

24

7 Nov 2015

Complaint to Judicial Conduct Investigations

Office(Judges conduct)

7 Nov 2015 ocj-complaint0913.pdf

25

2 Aug 2011

Concerns about the automated procedure of

issuing council tax summonses en masse

Fake court Summons 2

August 2011.doc

26

31 Aug 2011

Concerns about the automated procedure of

issuing council tax summonses en masse

Fake court Summons 31

August 2011.doc

27

20 March 2012 Concerns about the automated procedure of

issuing council tax summonses en masse

Fake court Summons 20

March 2012.doc

28

5 Sept 2013

Business Rates (NNDR) summons fraud

Business Rates summons

fraud 05 Sept 2013.pdf

29

25 Oct 2013

Highlighting effects of benefit reforms on cost

income / inappropriately funding council tax
admin

FOI data 25 October

2013.pdf

First document referred to in FOI data 25

October 2013.pdf

Total Cost of CT Admin.pdf

Second document referred to in FOI data 25

October 2013.pdf

FOI costs letters.pdf

30

31

INTRODUCTION
1.

The issues raised here will no doubt be considered by the police to be civil rather than
criminal matters because of the association with the recovery of council tax, for which
the recovery of such debt falls under the Civil Jurisdiction and Procedure of the
Magistrates Courts Act 1980. Perjury however is punishable as an offence whether it
occurs in criminal or civil proceedings and the consequences are in this case that a false
statement was made in order to commit an act of fraud.

2.

The seriousness of the matter is compounded by the obvious knowledge by the judge
that a false and corrupt statement had been made but nevertheless proceeded to find in
the councils favour.

3.

Because of a conflict of interest which exists if Humberside police were to deal with this
matter, it is suggested that another police force does so (see below para 68).

BACKGROUND
4.

North East Lincolnshire council (NELC) essentially instituted court proceedings to

enforce council tax liability even though payments were made in sufficient amount to
meet the legal obligation to pay the sums set out on the demand notice relating to my
2015/16 Council Tax liability. Ironically, at various times the account was in credit due
to over payment, but at all other times the account was up to date.

5.

A billing authority is able to exploit its council tax processing system which allocates
payments to the earliest debt (if one exists) where payments are unspecified.
Note: A specified payment, for the purpose of NELC's processing system, is a payment
that matches exactly the instalment amount or an arranged payment plan.

6.

A billing authority is advantaged by the costs generated for making complaint to the
Magistrates' court for engineering a non-payment scenario, by making a decision not
to re-allocate a payment which a taxpayer obviously intends reducing the indebtedness
of the current year's liability.

7.

NELC exploited its processing system in exactly this way in my case to divert a sum
obviously intended to reduce the indebtedness of the current years liability to a sum
which was outstanding from the 2012/13 tax year and so engineered default. The
criminal implications are clear as in the context of R v Ghosh [1982] EWCA Crim 2 (the
test of honesty), there is no doubt that even if the council held genuine belief that its
actions were morally justified, it must have realised that ordinary people would consider
them dishonest.
Disputed sum outstanding from previous year

8.

The sum outstanding from 2012/13 related to court costs for a similar matter involving
NELC making complaint for non payment of council tax. That sum was disputed (the
costs) and an application to state a case for an appeal to the High Court was submitted.
That sum was suspended pending the court's decision (yet to be determined) so under no
circumstances was it permissible for NELC to exploit its processing system for
engineering default by allocating payment to that sum. A letter dated 19 July 2013 sent
by NELCs Legal Department in connection with the claim for a mandatory order, to
which will be referred later, contains the following (emphasis added):
Yourself v Grimsby Magistrates Court & NELC
I write further to the legal proceedings issued by yourself at Leeds High Court
against Grimsby & Cleethorpes Magistrates Court, naming North East
Lincolnshire Council as an interested party. The papers have been passed to me
upon Mrs Conolly's departure from employment with the Local Authority.
The purpose of my writing to you is to inform you that the 60 court costs, which
you dispute, will be suspended until the outcome of the proceedings. At the
completion of those proceedings, dependent on the Court's decision, the fee will

either be withdrawn from your account or will remain outstanding to the Local
Authority.
A copy of this letter has been sent to the Leeds High Court for their information.
Yours sincerely
for Group Manager Legal & Democratic Services

9.

Even if the costs were not suspended, the sum (court costs) did not form part of any
year's council tax liability for which its system would have a parameter set to accept
specific payment (paras 4752, SD #18). Moreover, if NELC had lifted the
suspension, it could not simply be recovered by diverting payments made on the current
year's council tax because the sum then would be under enforcement. In those
circumstances, a decision about which one of a range of enforcement measures
empowered by the liability order would have had to be made to enforce the sum and
communicated to me. Despite NELC stating in a number of correspondence that I would
be notified if and when it were to resume enforcement, it never at any point conveyed
this to me (paras 7479, SD #18).

10.

An additional concern is why it is that one of the exhibits NELC1 (copy of my current
council tax bill) itemises the sum as a separate balance from the current liability and
describes it as a sum subject to court proceedings. NELC has at the same time as
claiming to have no reason to believe that the costs were being disputed, submitted an
item of evidence to the court that states that they are. This was additional to being
highlighted in my initial representations (para 20, SD #1) which the judge missed or
ignored. The Council Tax bill states as follows:
Memorandum Note
Your instalments for 2015/16 do not include your 2014/15 account balance
As at 27-FEB-2015 your 2014/15 Council Tax account balance is 60.00
60.00 of the total is subject to court proceedings

Missing papers
11.

On 16 October 2015, NELC served court papers by electronic transfer on myself and the
Magistrates court in respect of the 30 October 2015 court hearing. Fourteen files made
up the complete set of documents but only 9 of those which included a 'Witness
Statement' (SD #5) and exhibits 'NELC1' to 'NELC7' and 'NELC9' were successfully

transferred. Exhibits 'NELC8' and 'NELC10' to 'NELC13' were not transferred. Shortly
after NELC sent an email explaining it was having difficulty serving the court papers
and provided a link and instructions about how to download the files from an
account which NELC had created on its system which required me to log on with details
it provided after which I needed to change the password to one of my choice in order to
access the information.
12.

I was suspicious about why it was, that only certain files could not be served, and not
happy about entering sensitive information that might get into the wrong hands, it had
after all been able to transfer most of the papers by email attachment. I identified the 5
missing files and asked if those could be emailed but made it clear I was not willing to
create an account to access the files in the way suggested.

13.

On 19 October, NELC replied and explained it was having difficulties accessing the
electronic file and wanted to arrange a visit to my home so the paper files instead could
be handed over.

14.

I was suspicious about why a simple task was causing such difficulties and it crossed
my mind that there might be something NELC wanted to propose (off the record) in
view of the compelling evidence against it, or if not that some other ulterior motive to
make contact. In any event, it was pretty obvious from the context of the 'Witness
Statement' that the missing content could be sourced elsewhere, for example where the
content related to case authority. NELC was therefore informed that it was unnecessary
to deliver the case bundle in paper form.

15.

Exhibit 'NELC12' was identified in paragraph 69 of the Witness Statement to be a letter

on which NELC relied to justify having no further reason to believe that the costs were
being disputed [because I had withdrawn my] application for the Judicial review of the
costs'. As it was indicated to be the letter sent to the Administrative Court Office dated
20th November 2013 my email records verified that NELC had been sent a copy and
acknowledged by way of a 'read receipt' sent 22 November 2013.

16.

I was satisfied that not having exhibit 'NELC12' would cause no disadvantage. The
letter, however (Annex C [C-6], SD #18) does not give any cause to lead NELC to
believe that the High Court appeal (case stated) challenging the summons costs had
been withdrawn. The letter was in response to the Administrative Court's
recommendation (Annex C [C-5], SD #18) to withdraw the judicial review claim as the

process had prompted the Magistrates to produce a draft case (SD #3) and deemed there
no longer a need for further action on their part as the process of stating a case was
underway. The judicial review claim, which was a separate matter from the application
to state a case for an appeal challenging the costs, was merely the vehicle used to get the
Magistrates' court to conform. The judicial review claim therefore was for a mandatory
order, not a 'review of the costs' and so the case stated appeal challenging the summons
costs has never been withdrawn.
17.

It is clear from the context of that letter alone that it was only the judicial review claim
for a mandatory order that was withdrawn and that the High Court appeal challenging
the summons costs was still being pursued (draft bundle, SD #19 to #22). It is
inconceivable that the judge would have had difficulty understanding this, therefore the
reason he refused to, reinforces the assertion that he was biased in the favour of NELC.

18.

The bias toward NELC was made plain from the way the judge turned the matter from
being a question of whether the appeal had been withdrawn to whether evidence could
be produced to support the appeal was still live. The appropriation of monies was
supported by NELC on the basis that it believed the appeal had been withdrawn, and on
that basis alone. Upon realising that NELC had made a false and corrupt 'Witness
Statement', the judge offered assistance (as a way of justifying granting a liability order)
by introducing a defence for those actions, on which NELC had not sought to rely,
thereby seeking to pervert the course of justice. The question of whether the case was
live was not a factor in NELC's decision making to engineer court proceedings; the
decision upon which NELC misappropriated payment was based on its false claim that
it believed the appeal was withdrawn.

19.

When asked if I could provide evidence that the appeal was still live (as opposed to not
being withdrawn) the judge prevented me raising the matter that NELC had
acknowledged receiving letters (email attachments) by way of 'read receipts' returned on
15 January, 14 February and 23 April 2014 in respect of letters dated 10 January, 13
February and 22 April 2014. Those letters, which were copies of correspondence sent to
the Justices' Clerk contained hard evidence that the high court appeal was still
being pursued, and sent after the judicial review claim for mandatory order was
withdrawn (Annex C [C-8], [C-9] and [C11], SD #18).

20.

Acknowledgement of letter being read, sent to the Justices Clerk, querying the failure
to deliver the final signed case stated sent on 10 January (Annex C [C-8]):

From: Mike (Gov Connect)

To: xxxx
Sent: 15 January 2014 11:50
Subject: Read: Re: Representations on Draft Case - CrimPR 64.3 (6)
Your message
To: Raven, Mike (Gov Connect)
Subject: Re: Representations on Draft Case - CrimPR 64.3 (6)
Sent: 10 January 2014 15:09:48
was read on 15 January 2014 11:50:32.

21.

Acknowledgement of second letter being read, sent to the Justices Clerk, querying the
failure to deliver the final signed case stated sent on 13 February (Annex C [C-9]):
From: Mike (Gov Connect)
To: xxxx
Sent: 14 February 2014 11:29 AM
Subject: Read: Case Stated - Recognizance (re, North East Lincolnshire Council)
Your message
To: Raven, Mike (Gov Connect)
Subject: Case Stated - Recognizance (re, North East Lincolnshire Council)
Sent: 13 February 2014 16:18:48 (UTC) Dublin, Edinburgh, Lisbon, London
was read on 14 February 2014 11:29:00.

22.

Acknowledgement of letter being read, sent to the Justices Clerk, requesting certificate
stating that the application has been refused sent on 13 February (Annex C [C-11]):
From: Mike (Gov Connect)
To: xxxx
Sent: 23 April 2014 15:44
Subject: Read: Re: Certificate of Refusal to state a case - s.111(5) MCA 1980 (re, North
East Lincolnshire Council)
Your message
To: Raven, Mike (Gov Connect)
Subject: Re: Certificate of Refusal to state a case - s.111(5) MCA 1980 (re, North East
Lincolnshire Council)
Sent: 22 April 2014 14:48:32 (UTC) Dublin, Edinburgh, Lisbon, London
was read on 23 April 2014 16:44:20.

23.

The judge's argument in favour of NELC was apparently based on the length of time
elapsing since the Justices' Clerk gave an undertaking to set out in writing the position

regarding the appeal and advising on the next steps which were never acted on (Annex
C [C10], SD #18).
24.

The judge ironically exploited the Magistrates Court's failure to comply with the
relevant procedure rules, thus preventing/delaying the case coming before the high
court, in order to justify granting an order for which NELC fraudulently applied. In a
twist of fate, had the appeal proceeded, it is completely rational the high court would
have made similar judgment as in a case raising the same issue (see Nicolson v
Tottenham Magistrates, SD #2) and found the Magistrates Court's granting of the costs
unlawful. Crucially, had the Magistrates' court not sought to pervert the course of justice
in that appeal (SD #23), the disputed costs would never have been incorporated into my
council tax account (suspended or otherwise) to enable NELC to fraudulently allocate
payment to, in order to engineer a further recovery cycle (and costs) for recovering the
sum.

25.

It was conveyed to the judge that the matter in need of addressing surrounded the issues
raised in the argument he had made in support of NELC, which was the misconduct of
the Justices' Clerk that has led to wasting three years of my time. The efforts set out in
the representations (paras 715, SD #18) to ensure that the case advanced leaves no
doubt that the delay or prevention of the appeal coming before the court was in any way
my responsibility.

OBTAINING MISSING PAPERS

26.

The missing court papers were requested again on 2 November 2015 (after the court
hearing). I was considering the options to take the matter further and wanted the files in
preparation for providing as evidence for whichever route was decided upon. NELC was
able to transfer them on this occasion and on viewing them it was obvious (especially
with regard to exhibit NELC12), that contrary to my initial view, I was disadvantaged
by not having all the papers.

27.

Exhibit NELC12, which contained my letter withdrawing the claim for a mandatory
order and another from the Administrative Court acknowledging that instruction,
provided additional evidence that NELC had wilfully made a statement material in the
proceeding, which was known not to be true. The letters were not copies of the original;
it can be confirmed beyond reasonable doubt that the contents of that submission were
obtained from the same source that recorded publicly everything relevant to the matter

(Annex B, SD #18). The source was a public help forum dealing with council tax issues,
the same forum which NELC had sourced the contents of another of its exhibits
NELC11.
28.

The letters contained in exhibit NELC12 had been redacted and matched the entries
that were posted on the public forum (Annex B, SD #24). The forum is the only place
from which those letters could be sourced in that redacted form. The characteristics of
the letters which NELC submitted to the court were identical to the forum posts.

29.

Clearly NELC had not sought the original letters and had presumably as a short cut
referred to the website where all correspondence connected with the matter (albeit
redacted) where conveniently in one place. It is likely that if NELC had made use of the
forum to produce its submission, it would have been informed from the regular updates
posted that the case stated appeal was still very much being pursued.

30.

Whether NELC did refer generally to the forum is not the deciding factor that would
determine that it knowingly made a false statement; it would however reinforce the
allegations. The crux of the matter is that the post from which the content was sourced
(NELC12) was accompanied with some commentary (see below) which reinforced the
matter in itself:
Back almost to square one.
Although the judicial review claim for mandatory order was not entirely
successful in mandating the Magistrates' Court to state the case (other than the
draft), it would never have been known there was a possibility to negotiate the
terms of a recognizance at the hearing. It took this process to prompt a response
from the Justices at Grimsby Magistrates' Court.
The next move then will be to arrange to appear before the Magistrates' Court to
agree terms of a recognizance.

31.

Contents of exhibits NELC10 and NELC 11 where also sourced from public forums
but were produced from screen shots and included information such as the date to
indicate when the websites were accessed. The content in exhibit NELC12 was not
obviously produced from screen shots, but although possible it is much more likely that
the text would simply have been copied and pasted, retaining the same formatting.

32.

These exhibits where referred to in paragraphs 66 and 67 of NELCs Witness Statement

to make the point known to the court that I was aware about the need to make an
election of payment and that I had knowledge about how the Northgate system works.

33.

It is with disbelief that NELC could make the assumption that I intended to allocate
monies to the oldest sum (and the judge agree) when it is self evident from those
exhibits that my disputes, past and present, surround my objection to monies being
allocated that way. Clearly NELC has incriminated itself by submitting material which
fully supports it knowingly misallocating monies to a sum against my express wishes.

34.

The remaining missing court papers all provided the case authority on which NELC
sought to rely in its Witness Statement. Though it was anticipated sourcing these cases
would not cause undue difficulty, the complete judgments were not found, only
references in other cases, which though time consuming, provided an outline of the
issues and enough to piece together a response (paras 4873, SD #18).

35.

Exhibit NELC8 which is referred to in paras 60 and 61 of NELCs Witness Statement

relies on the case; Cory Brothers & Co. Ltd. v. Owners of the Turkish Steamship
"Mecca" 1897 AC 286. In para 61 (Witness Statement) the partial sentence on which
NELC sought to rely was this: When a debtor pays money on account to his creditor
and makes no appropriation to particular items, the creditor has the right of
appropriation and may exercise the right up to the last moment, by action or otherwise.

36.

However, on viewing the exhibit after obtaining it post court hearing, there are several
references to the case which it relied on in exhibit NELC7: Devaynes V Noble 1816
merivale 529 (the Clayton case). NELC relied on that case to defend that its Council
Tax processing system allocates payments correctly if no election is made, i.e., the
earliest debts are paid first (paras 58-59, SD #5).

37.

Returning to exhibit NELC8, it is revealed in the paragraph from which NELC quoted
in part, that the rule in Clayton's case does not apply to a case where there is no
account current between the parties:
When a debtor pays money on account to his creditor and makes no appropriation
to particular items, the creditor has the right of appropriation and may exercise the
right up to the last moment, by action or otherwise, the application of the money is
governed, not by any rigid rule of law, but by the intention of the creditor,
expressed implied or presumed. The rule in Clayton's case, (1816) 1 Mer. 585
does not apply to a case where there is no account current between the parties, nor

where from an account rendered or other circumstances, it appears that the creditor
intended, not to make any appropriation, but to reserve the right.
38.

The judgment in exhibit NELC8 further clarifies the kind of account which the rule in
the Clayton case does not apply to in a reference to Sir W. Grant Master of the Rolls
judgment in Clayton where he distinguished one debt and account type from another:
They were all cases of distinct insulated debts, between which a plain line of
separation could be drawn. But this is the case of a banking account, where all the
sums paid in form one blended fund, the parts of which have no longer any
distinct existence.

39.

The case authority, on which NELCs software supplier bases its allocation rules with
regard to allocating unspecified payments to the oldest debt, cannot apply in a system
whereby the accounts relate, as they do in council tax, to distinct insulated debts,
between which a plain line of separation could be drawn.

40.

Exhibit NELC13 which is referred to in para 72 of NELCs Witness Statement relies

on the case; Leeson v. Leeson (1936) 2 K.B. 156. The context of that case is not clear
from what is detailed in its statement which is limited to the following: an
appropriation of a payment cannot be inferred from an intention in the mind of the
debtor un-communicated to the creditor. It can only be inferred from circumstances
known to both parties.

41.

Again, after obtaining the exhibit and viewing the judgment, it is clear that the authority
on which NELC sought to rely should not have been any assistance as it is obvious from
the circumstances, to which sum payment was intended. Despite not having the exhibit
NELC13, some relevant information was sourced (paras 5361, SD #18).

42.

Not withstanding his reliance on a statement which he knew to be false, the judge acted
outside his powers by granting the order. The regulations governing council tax liability
do not give the court authority to make an order when the defendant has proved that
there is no outstanding debt. No discretion in such cases is given to impose a penalty
(especially not for ones own perverse gratification) which is what the judge did in this
case by allowing the application and granting costs, based on his own opinion differing
from mine about how, and in what manner bills are paid.

43.

He made this obvious by raising irrelevant matters which were no ones business but my
own concerning the number of transactions, in what sum those payments were made and

the method used for paying council tax instalments. He implied that using the
enforcement process as punishment was legitimate for not paying the way NELC
preferred by the concern, which drove him to the point of enquiring if I held a bank
account and why payments werent made by standing order like everyone else.
Evidently, it was for my objection to Direct Debit as a means of paying bills that the
judge viewed it warranted for NELC to exploit its dysfunctional council tax processing
system as a means of defrauding me.
44.

The bias could not have been more obvious when the judge referred to previous
maladministration (Annex J, SD #1), similarly in respect of misallocated payments, for
which 27 days was taken by NELC to respond and resolve the matter, by which time
reminders and a summons were wrongly issued. The facts were distorted out of all
recognition and portrayed in the courtroom to be my fault for NELCs gross error. The
judge was again noticeably irked to the point that he was motivated to make a spurious
statement which was that NELC, as a consequence, had a right to remove the statutory
instalment entitlement for subsequent years liability and demand the full sum up front.

45.

The order was not made because there was a legal obligation, but for what appeared to
be the assistance that imposing a financial penalty might provide in coercing me into
conceding and making payments in line with the NELC's preferred method.

TURNING BLIND EYE TO REPRESENTATIONS CONTESTING COSTS

46.

The Magistrates court has no discretion in the amount of costs it orders in respect of a
complaint made to the justices in the matter of council tax liability. The regulations
restrict the level so that no more than the expenditure incurred by the applicant in
respect of instituting the complaint is rechargeable to the defendant. The breakdown
(Annex F, SD #1) contained indisputable evidence that the vast majority of the costs
claimed were not incurred by NELC in respect of instituting the complaint in my case.

47.

It was explained to him (the judge) that the costs itemised referred largely to council
resources dealing with enquiries, rescheduling and monitoring payment plans etc. and
subsidising bad debt for which none could be attributable to the issue of my summons.
A detailed analysis in this regard had in any event been submitted in the written
evidence (paras 67 and 27117, SD #1) to support that the summons costs as applied

on making complaint could not have been incurred by NELC, as set out in its
breakdown (Annex F, SD #1), therefore fraudulent.
48.

The judge approved the level from a brief glance of the breakdown. There was nothing
in that calculation that could remotely satisfy the court that the expenditure attributed to
its standard costs was referable to the court application at the prescribed time, neither in
my individual case nor as an average of those against whom complaint was made.
However, the spreadsheet is indicative of a breakdown of NELCs expenditure for
council tax enforcement and recovery (paras 6772, SD #1) which would incorporate
impermissible costs. The application, for which NELC may claim costs, simply involves
a process to obtain the courts permission to enforce payment and nothing more. There
is no vehicle through which NELC may lawfully recharge expenditure it incurs to the
defendant beyond that process.

49.

The law further restricts costs with the provision for incrementally applying them, first
in a sum for making complaint and the further amount (if required) on making the
application. Singly applying standard costs in respect of making complaint would be
lawful only if the authority were to forfeit the element of expenditure it incurs
subsequently in respect of the court application.

50.

It is noted that the judge allowed NELC to succeed in pulling the wool by convincing
him that the costs had been incurred and therefore permissible but with no justification
that the expenditure was referable to the relevant legislation. It is without doubt that the
ignorance displayed by the judge was a show put on as a means to impress on the court
that the fraudulent claim was legitimate. It is alleged that the charade was to avoid being
the judge responsible for the inevitable uncovering of the massive scale fraud committed
nationally by local authorities and enabled by Her Majestys Court Service.

51.

His acquiescence was expressed first by the way the figures, though irrelevant, appeared
to him to be comprehensively set out. It is obvious however that the elaborate
presentation was for duping anyone having to scrutinise and endorse the figures. NELC
had even prided itself on the accounts having authenticity in regard their lawfulness by
attaching auditor approval when in fact the figures were not subject to audit and
NELCs external audit contractor (KPMG) was not willing to have a reference to
District Audit on the Councils website. However, it is clear that had the figures been
subject to audit (and it is not seen why they are not) the evidence was such that NELC's
claims were not reasonable in the context of the relevant law which governs costs. It

would therefore have been appropriate that KPMG apply to the court for a declaration
that an item of account is contrary to law under section 17(1) of the Audit Commission
Act 1998.
52.

In another demonstration of over willingness to accept the figure, the judge attributed
justifying the costs on the basis of the materially irrelevant fact that the cost per
summons which on the breakdown presented to him had been rounded down from
63.05 to 60.00. He had, it appears, purposely allowed this to divert attention from the
relevant matter which was that the majority of the costs were impermissible under the
regulations. The judge did not, or it appears he did not read or account for the
representations that showed without any doubt that the vast majority of costs were
unlawful (paras 73115, SD #1).
Inflating the standard costs to factor in bad debt element

53.

NELCs breakdown provided the required data to determine the amount of bad debt
arising from waived or unrecoverable costs that was added to the standard sum. At least
42% of taxpayers against whom complaint was made were summonsed without costs
applied which had the effect of inflating the standard summons costs by around 25 for
those who did have them applied (paras 7982, SD #1).

54.

The breakdown also provided information to inform the person scrutinising it that the
gross recoverable costs under the Council Tax budget was attributable to resources
taken up dealing with queries relating to the recovery. The amount was taken (budget
figure around 0.8m) as a ratio of calls arising from summonses to calls arising from
reminders that do not result in a summons. Based on the Councils computing method,
this adds 18 to the cost per summons. None of this was lawfully incurred by NELC in
respect of my summons simply because the calculation was founded on assumptions
that each person against whom complaint was made had taken up resources by engaging
with staff in some way in matters connected with the summons (paras 8386, SD #1).

55.

Similarly the element attributed to the standard sum from the recoverable costs under
the Debt Recovery budget adds a sum (31) which has been determined unlawfully.
Assumptions are made that each person against whom complaint is made gives cause
for recovery staff to carry out their various functions. In my case no resources were
called upon to negotiate or re-schedule any payment plan and the whole element of costs
relevant to the Debt Recovery budget can not be lawfully justified (paras 87102, SD

#1). The same goes for the Control & Monitoring budget which accounts for around
10 of the standard costs. As a consequence of having no re-scheduled payment plan, it
is fraudulent to claim costs for monitoring one (paras 103111, SD #1).
Costs to be no more than that incurred by the authority in any individual case
56.

The amount claimed by way of costs in any individual case must be no more than that
reasonably incurred by the billing authority (para 51, SD #1). Therefore, if NELC
wanted to take advantage of streamlining the administration process by applying a
standard sum in all cases (paras 4751, SD #1), in order for it to be done lawfully, it
would need to forfeit each element of expenditure it incurs that is not common to every
application (the majority of costs which are accounted for in its breakdown).

57.

In other words, a standard sum could not exceed that incurred by the authority in a case
where the least expenditure is attributed, which would in practice relate to a taxpayer
settling his outstanding debt on receipt of a summons without contacting the council on
any issue. Deriving a figure therefore from the Gross Recoverable costs which is split
between an estimated number of summons, can not be lawful; even less so if the number
of summons is reduced to factor in an estimate for those withdrawn, waived and those in
respect of unrecoverable costs. The least cost case is the only basis on which to
determine a standard sum if the aim is to eliminate the administrative burden of
calculating the costs in each case, whilst at the same time complying with the
regulations which require that the costs be no more than that incurred by the authority in
any individual case.
If the Regulations were applied lawfully, the consequences would be that the majority of
Council Tax (191,730), Debt Recovery (327,480) and the Control & Monitoring
costs (109,380) would not be permissible in respect of re-charging expenditure for
instituting the complaint. What is set-out above should have been enough to alert the
judge that NELC's claims were not reasonable in the context of the relevant law and
should therefore have, as legally required, sought to award lower costs accordingly. The
number of taxpayers summonsed in relation to the monthly council tax liability hearing
held on 2 October 2015 totalled 942. If the standard 60 costs were applied in each case
there would have been raised in excess of 56k which would account for approximately
10 times an amount had they been properly referable to the law governing them.

Unquestionable Bias
58.

Representations submitted to the court argued a case in the context of the relevant
enforcement power which was ignored in its entirety by the judge who made his
decision in favour of NELC from briefly viewing a copy of irrelevant accounts relating
to its council tax enforcement and recovery budget.

59.

The ease with which the judge was swayed in favour of NELC was demonstrated with
the statement that implied that the costs must be reasonable from a reference made to
other authorities standard costs, and that the ruling in Nicolson v Tottenham
Magistrates (SD #2) had not determined that the level was unlawful. From that it is
clear that he had not read/understood (or pretended not to have) the judgment provided
as a supporting document, which at paragraph 57 said; looking to see whether the costs
were broadly in line with costs being charged by other local authorities was all well and
good, but it was not enough to discharge the courts obligations (paras 4751, SD #1).
And in the judgment the distinction was clear at para 52 that establishing that the costs
were reasonably incurred is not the same thing as establishing that the costs were
reasonable in amount.

60.

It is obvious from the comment referring to the Nicolson case that the point had been
missed as the issue did not exclusively revolve around the level. What was provided in
that judgment regarding the relevant regulations was some general guidance as to their
interpretation and scope (para 36, SD #2). The degree to which that guidance and
interpretation extended is evident in the judgment from paragraph 33 onwards. There
was nothing in that breakdown which would suggest anything other than that it being an
account of its expenditure incurred in connection with council tax enforcement and
recovery.
Costs set at levels for improper purposes

61.

It was summarised (paras 118130, SD #1) how NELC historically manipulated costs
unlawfully in order to generate income to meet a number of different objectives. The
apparent blind eye the judge turned to this can not give the public confidence in the
justice system. It is one thing having local authorities operating fraudulently but quite
another when the Magistrates court blatantly endorses it.

62.

In 2001/02 court costs had been set with the admitted intention of encouraging prompt
payment (as well as generating additional income) that came with the threat of a more

severe financial penalty. It is well established that costs should be awarded as

compensation, not as punishment. In R v Highgate Justices ex parte Petrou [1954] 1
ALL ER 406 it was held that costs should not exceed the proper costs incurred and
should not be a penalty.
63.

Another summary set out that in 2002/03 summons costs were increased by 50% in
order to raise additional revenue to meet funding to pay for additional staff to ensure a
backlog of work that had arisen due to changes in the IT system were addressed. In
Attfield v the London Borough of Barnet [2013] EWHC 2089 (Admin), it was held that a
local authority must not attempt to raise revenue where there is no clear statutory power
to do so. In the present case, the statutory power expressly limits costs that may be
claimed to the expenditure incurred by the Council in connection with instituting the
complaint. The decision to increase summons costs did not arise because of an increase
in the cost of instituting the complaint, rather for the clear intention of funding
additional resources to overcome the backlog of work that had arisen in the
administration of Council Tax etc., due to delays in implementing a new IT system.

64.

Another summarised how NELC manipulated court costs to provide additional income
as an alternative to charging for non-statutory services. The summons costs were
increased in preference to an alternative proposal of introducing a charge for garden
waste collections. Summons costs were therefore increased disproportionately, with no
statutory power to do so, in order to plug a gap in its finances for the purposes of
offsetting expenditure for waste services.

65.

Finally the existence of a budgeted income stream for court costs was highlighted which
was evident from published reports showing outturn variances for this income. A report
relating to the 2004/05 financial year indicated that the costs were set at a level such that
a significant surplus was achievable, which in that year amounted to 0.125 million. The
Council had therefore raised revenue for an improper purpose, namely to prop up other
budgets. Apart from being fundamentally unlawful, the whole approach suggests that
the system is clearly open to abuse with income targets unquestionably creating a
perverse incentive to summons.

CONCLUSION
66.

What has been allowed to happen, with the court as an accomplice can only be
described as daylight robbery committed with arrogant impunity by NELC. There is no

doubt that the judge had acted with intent to pervert the course of justice as he had
before him indisputable evidence that a false and corrupt statement had been made.
Granting an order therefore made him complicit in NELC's criminal actions that sought
to exploit a complaint to the court for the purposes of defrauding me with an attached
claim of costs.
67.

The criminally obtained court order was not the only issue, as the costs awarded were
fraudulent in amount. The only logical reason for the judge denying existence of the
representations contesting them is because had they been considered, its not seen how
they could have been feasibly challenged. The judges responsibility entailed overseeing
the full transfer of 56,000 from defendants to NELC in respect of that one hearing no
matter how fraudulent the claim. A proper consideration of the evidence therefore
would have made that job impossible and why it was ignored. The crucial role played by
Grimsby Magistrates court in ensuring the income generated for NELC continues at
current levels would explain why in respect of the High Court application appealing
these costs the court has prevented proceedings for three years through means of lies
and deception.

68.

There are a number of correspondence itemised in the list of supporting documents

relating to previous concerns raised with Humberside police on a similar theme which
were never properly investigated then (SD #2531). The same can be said for concerns
relating to bailiff fraud (not included). Humberside polices Economic crime unit has,
over a number of years, concentrated its effort into challenging the evidence gathered to
avoid dealing with the allegations thus protecting the accused and enabling them
without consequence to continue their criminal activity. It would therefore be reasonable
to suspect that Humberside police, along with Grimsby Magistrates court and NELC is
complicit in the fraudulent raising of revenue through unscrupulous means. In light of
that, it would seem a conflict of interest if Humberside police were to deal with these
allegations and so it would seem a reasonable suggestion for another police force to do
so. This is especially the case with it being my intention to pursue action against all
those officers who have been party to the misconduct, cover-ups, negligence and lies
etc. There is in any event, no reason to have confidence that the matter would be
properly dealt with by Humberside polices Economic crime officers as Ive found to
my cost from several years being fobbed off by them.

69.

The allegations which point to a criminal conspiracy between NELC and the court are
summarised below:
NELC for committing;
a. Perjury by making a statement (material in the proceedings) that was
known to be false with the intention misleading the court to justify
misallocating payment to a disputed sum
b. Fraud by engineering default for the current year enabling a further court
application for the purposes of attaching a claim of costs and potential
bailiff charges which have been threatened already in a letter dated 8
November 2015
c. Fraud by claiming a level of costs both in my individual case and in
general which are not provided for under the Council Tax (Administration
and Enforcement) Regulations 1992

District Judge Daniel Curtis for;

a. Perverting the course of justice knowing that before him was evidence
that a false and corrupt statement had been made
b. Complicity in NELCs fraudulent application for liability order by,
i) granting the order knowing that a false statement had been made
ii) ignoring evidence contesting payment allocation laws were breached
ii) ignoring evidence contesting costs (level) breaching the Council Tax
(Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992
70.

This statement is true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Dated this 2nd day of December 2015

Signed:

Judicial Conduct
Investigations Office
___________

Complaint form
Thank you for sending us details of your complaint.
Below is a copy of the details you supplied, please keep this form for your records.
When we reply you we will provide you with a unique case reference number. In the meantime, if you
need to contact us, please quote the reference number provided here.
Date form submitted

7 November 2015

Your details
Title

Mr

First name
Last name
Address
Grimsby
North East Lincolnshire

Postcode

Daytime telephone

None
@gmail.com

Email
Details about your case
Type of judicial
office holder

District Judge (Magistrates Court)

Name of judicial
office holder

Daniel Curtis

Name of the court

or tribunal

Grimsby Magistrates Court

Case number

Not known

Is your case still

ongoing

No

JCIO Complaint form (09.13)

Date of Hearing

30 October 2015

Brief description of your complaint

Category
of complaint

Miscellaneous

Description of your complaint

Background to case
North East Lincs Council (the 'Claimant') erroneously applied for a liability order for non-payment of council tax
due to misallocating monies to a sum that had arisen from a previous years summons costs, which were
disputed and appealed to the High Court. That sum was suspended pending the court's decision; therefore no
payments in respect of the current liability were ever overdue. The case (High Court) is yet to be determined so
the costs still suspended; therefore, under no circumstances was it a sum to which the Claimant could
legitimately allocate payment.
Myself (the "Defendant") submitted extensive evidence to support that i) the appeal (as alleged) had never
been withdrawn and so the suspension of costs from the account never lifted, ii) payments were in any event
inferred by the circumstances to be appropriated to the current liability, iii) it was inconceivable that the
summons costs as applied on making complaint could have been incurred by the claimant, as per the
Claimants breakdown.
The Claimant made a statement (material in the proceedings) which he knew to be false, to the effect that the
appeal challenging the costs had been withdrawn. Indisputable evidence was submitted to support why the
statement was untrue and why the Claimant could not have believed it to have been true. The Defendant's
suspicion that the statement was made with deliberate intent to deceive the court was made clear in those
representations.

Professional Misconduct
The judge was unwilling to listen to, accept or understand any evidence which didn't fit in with the predetermined outcome (to accept the false statement to justify granting the order). It was sensed throughout the
hearing that the judge pretended to be out of his depth as a strategy for denying evidence that might, if
considered, defeat the Claimant's argument and make granting the order more difficult to justify. His ineptitude
was almost certainly put on for show; therefore a description far more accurate would be of 'Professional
Misconduct' than that of incompetence.

Criminal Allegations
The judge was so lacking in objectivity and obviously pro-prosecution that had an unsighted person walked into
the courtroom he would have almost certainly mistaken him as the Claimant's barrister, albeit one grasping at
straws, raising irrelevant matters with the intention of hoodwinking the bench. It can therefore be stated
unreservedly that there had been not even a hint of a fair hearing.
There seems no doubt that the judge had acted with intent to pervert the course of justice as he had before him
indisputable evidence that a false and corrupt statement had been made. Granting an order therefore made
him complicit in the Claimant's criminal actions that sought to exploit a complaint to the court for the purposes
of defrauding the Defendant with an attached claim of costs.

Inappropriate Comments / Discrimination

His manner (the judge) was antagonistic and belittling and although there was no retaliation to speak of, the
provocation was such that a conflict could have easily arisen. It is easily seen how such an approach might be
used to distract attention from the case in order to discredit someone or simply to goad someone who the judge
took a personal dislike to. If such incidents have occurred, which is difficult to see how they could not have,
based upon my experience, I would fully support anyone who has fallen victim who might now, for example be
on a charge for contempt of court, as a consequence of the provocation.
His concluding comments in so far as they can be recalled were that hed listened for half an hour to an
outburst of political diatribe for which only 5 minutes made any sense. This can only be put down to his inability
(or demonstration thereof) to understand the representations which had in any event been submitted as
detailed written evidence. The diatribe referred to can only reasonably be put down to a couple of issues raised.
A reference to the misconduct of the Justices Clerk for the Humber and South Yorkshire which is considered so
serious as to warrant answering charges of misconduct in public office is one. Secondly, a matter which the
Claimant relied on was contended as being misleading evidence (additional to the false statement).
As for the political reference, it was merely pointed out that the issues were of general public importance as
they could detrimentally affect significant numbers and more so since government reforms introduced changes
to council tax benefits. These issues were material to the case and did not exceed a brief mention as the judge
made it plain that they were not matters worthy of consideration, presumably because they were not favourable
to the outcome that had obviously been pre-determined in the interest of the Claimant. Again everything
relevant to these points was set out in the written evidence.
His comments were far from the most tactful thing to say to someone, who whilst over the period of time that
the judge will have received over half a million pounds of taxpayer's money, has had no remuneration
whatsoever for consistently and voluntarily dedicating around 15 hours a day, 7 days a week to matters
concerning the wholesale fraud, which it has become obvious is endorsed by people appointed in a judicial
capacity.
The judge was acting beyond his authority when again in his belittling manner his interrogation turned to an
irrelevant matter concerning the number of payments, in what sum those payments were made and the method
chosen for paying council tax instalments. It irked him, so much so, that he enquired if a bank account was held
and why payments werent made by standing order like everyone else. It wasnt for the court to lay blame
elsewhere for the Claimant exploiting its council tax processing system as a means of defrauding taxpayers.
Unashamed bias was displayed again when the judge referred to previous maladministration, similarly in
respect of misallocated payments, for which 27 days was taken by the Claimant to respond and resolve the
matter, by which time reminders and a summons were wrongly issued. The facts were distorted out of all
recognition and portrayed in the courtroom to be the Defendants fault for the Claimants gross error. The judge
was again noticeably irked to the point that he was motivated to make a spurious statement which was that the
Claimant, as a consequence, had a right to demand subsequent years liability up-front thus removing the
statutory instalment entitlement.
Misuse of Judicial Powers
Not withstanding his reliance on a statement which he knew was false, the judge acted outside his powers by
granting the order. The regulations governing council tax liability do not give the court authority to make an
order when the defendant has proved that there is no outstanding debt. No discretion in such cases is given to
impose a penalty (especially not for ones own perverse gratification) which is what the judge did in this case by
allowing the application and granting costs, based on his own opinion differing from the Defendants about how,
and in what manner bills are paid.

Neither is the court allowed discretion in the amount of costs it orders. The regulations restrict the level so that
no more than the expenditure incurred by the applicant in respect of instituting the complaint is rechargeable to
the defendant. The breakdown contained indisputable evidence that the vast majority of the costs claimed were
not incurred by the Claimant in respect of instituting the complaint in the Defendants case. The judge approved
the level from a brief glance of the breakdown. It was then explained to him that the costs itemised referred
largely to council resources dealing with enquiries, rescheduling and monitoring payment plans etc. and
subsidising bad debt for which none could be attributable to the Defendants summons. A detailed analysis in
this regard had in any event been submitted in the written evidence.
The order was not made because there was a legal obligation, but for what appeared to be the assistance that
imposing a financial penalty might provide in coercing the Defendant into conceding and making payments in
line with the Claimant's preferred method.
There was a substantial amount of evidence before the court. Had due process followed and the
representations considered objectively it is inconceivable that the judge would have determined the case in the
way he did. He seemed to view his role as a disciplinarian rather than someone who was duty bound to deliver
a decision based on the legal arguments that were before him.
It is appreciated that a complaint cannot consider the judge's decision (that is now a police matter), but this is
not a complaint about that, rather it concerns the failure to carry out his duties in an unbiased way and for that
reason unfit to sit on the bench in a court of law and should no longer be allowed to for the sake of future
potential victims of the judicial system.

Annex A to C
The misconduct is of such a serious nature that should the concerns raised be misjudged and no action taken
as a consequence, the justice systems reputation will be seriously at stake. That is why material has been
included in Annex A to C which demonstrates, for want of a better phrase, that it is beyond reasonable doubt,
that the Defendant has been stitched-up by what points to a criminal conspiracy between the Claimant and the
court.

Annex A
Contained here is an exhibit identified as NELC12. In its Witness Statement, the Claimant refers to the letters
in that exhibit to justify having no further reason to believe that the costs were being disputed because the
Defendant had withdrawn his application for the Judicial review of the costs.
It is not only clear from the content of the Defendants letter dated 20 November 2013 that the application to
state a case regarding costs had not been withdrawn (only the claim for a mandatory order), but the letter was
not a copy of the original. It is beyond all reasonable doubt that the Claimant had sourced those letters from a
public forum, the same forum which it had sourced the contents of another of its exhibits (NELC11).

Annex B
The letters contained in Annex A had been redacted and matched the entries that were posted on the public
forum as seen in Annex B. The forum is the only place from which those letters could be sourced in that
redacted form. The characteristics of the letters which the Claimant submitted to the court were identical to the
forum posts.

Clearly the Claimant had not sought the original letters and had presumably for convenience consulted the
public forum on which all letters connected with the matter (albeit redacted) where conveniently in one place. It
is a reasonably assumption that if on this occasion the Claimant consulted the forum to produce its exhibit, it
would have done so subsequently where further updates on that forum continued providing evidence that the
case stated was still very much being pursued. That would only reinforce the established fact and so does not
matter whether the Claimant did or did not continued monitoring the forum, as the crux of the matter is that the
post (Annex A) from which the content was sourced was accompanied with some commentary which reinforced
the matter in itself. Crucially the commentary ended with this sentence: the next move will be to arrange to
appear before the Magistrates' Court to agree terms of a recognizance.

Annex C
The exhibit (NELC1) is the Defendants 2015/16 council tax bill (demand notice) which displays unambiguously
at the bottom of the document that an amount of 60.00 is a sum which is subject to Court Proceedings. The
same has been included on each of the Defendants demand notices ever since the appeal, by way of a case
stated, was instituted.
Allegations of Judicial Misconduct
For the avoidance of doubt, this does not constitute an appeal of the courts decision, it is a complaint made in
accordance with the Judicial Conduct (Judicial and other office holders) Rules 2014 about the judges conduct
on several counts which are set out in detail above and itemised as follows:

i)

Professional Misconduct

ii)

Criminal Allegations

iii)

Inappropriate Comments / Discrimination

iv)

Misuse of Judicial Powers

I confirm that the information I have provided is correct.

Judicial Conduct and Investigations Office, Royal Courts of Justice,
Queens Building, Strand, London WC2A 2LL
Enquiry Line: 020 7073 4719
JCIO Complaint form (09.13)

Fax: 020 7073 4725

Annex A C

Omitted

Request complete paper

GRIMSBY AND CLEETHORPES

Application to start a prosecution

(s1 Magistrates Courts Act 1980)

MAGISTRATES COURT
(Code 1940)

Listed: 26 April 2016

Prosecution
v
Humberside Police
Defendant

STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE

LIST OF EXHIBITS
No

DATE

DESCRIPTION

FILE

8 March 2016 Magistrates Courts Act, s 1 (Information)

Exhibit 1

12 Nov 2015

Email from Humb Police

Exhibit 2

12 Nov 2015

Email to Humb Police

Exhibit 3

13 Nov 2015

Email from Humb Police

Exhibit 4

2 Dec 2015

Evidence supporting allegations

Exhibit 5

8 Dec 2015

Humb Police confirming recording of complaint

Exhibit 6

13 Jan 2016

Humb Police outcome of complaint

Exhibit 7

25 Jan 2016

Appeal against outcome of complaint

Exhibit 8

19 July 2013

10

October 2015 Councils Witness Statement

11

Nov 2013

12

October 2015 Councils Exhibit (NELC12)

13

20 Nov 2013

Original letter to Administrative Court

Exhibit 13

14

25 Nov 2013

Original letter from Administrative Court

Exhibit 14

15

15 Jan 2014

Email Read Receipt from Council

Exhibit 15

16

14 Feb 2014

Email Read Receipt from Council

Exhibit 16

17

23 April 2014 Email Read Receipt from Council

Exhibit 17

18

10 Jan 2014

Letter to the Justices Clerk (query delivery of case)

Exhibit 18

19

13 Feb 2014

Letter to the Justices Clerk (query delivery of case)

Exhibit 19

20

22 April 2014 Letter to the Justices Clerk (requesting certificate)

21

1.

Costs suspended until outcome of proceedings

Screen shots of internet forum posts

S 26 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015

Exhibit 9
Exhibit 10
Exhibit 11
Exhibit 12

Exhibit 20
Exhibit 21

This statement and the above listed provides evidence to support the information laid on
8.3.16 [Exhibit 1].

2.

On 12.11.15, Humberside Police (HP) responded by stating that a reported crime (one
punishable as an offence whether occurring in criminal or civil proceedings), was a civil
matter [Exhibit 2].

3.

An email expressing dissatisfaction with HPs response was sent 12.11.15 stating that a
complaint would be submitted about whoever within the force made the decision. A
request was made for the matter to be escalated for the attention of the Chief Constable
so dissatisfaction of a subsequent decision would be subject to external scrutiny rather
than the force investigating itself. [Exhibit 3].

4.

HP made contact on 13.11.15, advising that all evidence should be collated to support
the allegations [Exhibit 4]. HP confirmed in a letter dated 23.11.15 that the Professional
Standards Branch was in receipt of the complaint. The advice was acted on regarding
the evidence and a statement produce dated 2.12.15 [Exhibit 5]. A number of
supporting documents were indexed but withheld awaiting assurance that they would be
considered but the documents were never asked for.

5.

A letter dated 8.12.15 from HP confirmed that the matter had been formally recorded
(CO 461/15) and enclose a copy of the complainant report [Exhibit 6]. The letter
(outcome) in relation to the complaint was sent on 13.1.16 [Exhibit 7] stating that
unless a request comes from the court, HP do not investigate allegations of perjury and
was a matter to be argued with the court.

6.

On 15.1.16 Grimsby Magistrates court was forwarded HPs outcome letter and asked if
it would confirm that the North East Lincolnshire Council (the Council) had in fact
produced a false witness statement and inform HP (the court had been forwarded the
statement [Exhibit 5] on 11.12.15). The court replied in this matter on 26.1.16 stating
that it would not be taking any action regarding the allegations of perjury.

7.

An appeal against the outcome of local resolution was submitted on 25.1.16 [Exhibit 8]
but to date there has been no update in relation to any progress made.

Exhibits supporting false statement

8.

In summary, the council applied to the Magistrates' court to obtain a Council Tax
liability order relating to the 2015/16 tax year. Payments were made in sufficient
amount to meet the legal obligation to pay the sums set out on the demand notice and so
the account was never in arrears.

9.

The Council engineered a 'non-payment' scenario, by allocating monies to a disputed

sum which related to a previous year's account that was under appeal to the High Court.
That sum was suspended [Exhibit 9] pending the court's decision which has yet to be
concluded. The Council allocate monies to the wrong account attributing that decision
to believing that the sum was no longer disputed because the appeal had been withdrawn
(paras 69 & 73 of the Councils Witness Statement submitted for Council Tax liability
hearing 30.10.15 [Exhibit 10]).

10.

Evidence held supports that this claim was untrue, not on account of the appeal never
being withdrawn (though it hasn't), but specifically because it is beyond all reasonable
doubt that the council knew it had not been withdrawn. The Council posted monies to
the suspended account on the premise that it believed the appeal had been withdrawn
and therefore did so fraudulently.

11.

It is beyond reasonable doubt that two internet forum posts [Exhibit 11] were the source
of one of the Councils exhibits (NELC12) referred to in its Witness Statement for
Council Tax liability hearing 30.10.15 [Exhibit 12]. These were two letters on which
the Council sought to rely in justifying having no further reason to believe that the
costs were being disputed because the application for the Judicial review of the costs'
had been withdrawn.

12.

The original letters one dated 20.11.13 [Exhibit 13] was in response to the
Administrative Court's recommendation to withdraw the judicial review claim as the
process had prompted the Magistrates to produce a draft case and deemed there no
longer a need for further action on their part as the process of stating a case was
underway.
Note: The judicial review claim, which was a separate matter from the application to
state a case for an appeal challenging the costs, was merely the vehicle used to get the
Magistrates' court to comply with the procedure. The judicial review claim therefore
was for a mandatory order, not a 'review of the costs' and so the case stated appeal
challenging the summons costs had not been withdrawn.
The other letter dated 25.11.13 [Exhibit 14] was the Administrative Court's response to
confirm that the letter to withdraw had been accepted and the Court file closed.

13.

The letters contained in the Councils submission had been redacted and matched the
entries that were posted on the public forum. The forum is the only place from which
those letters could be sourced in that form. The characteristics (redaction, formatting
etc.) of the letters which the Council submitted to the court were identical to the forum
posts [Exhibit 10].

14.

The Council had for some reason not sought the original letters and made use of the
website where every correspondence connected with the matter (albeit redacted) could
be conveniently accessed. It is likely that if the Council had made use of the forum to

produce its submission, it would have been informed from the regular updates posted
that the case stated appeal was still being pursued. Even if the forum was not regularly
viewed it was enough that it did once to source content to be certain that it knowingly
made a false statement. The crux of the matter is that one of the posts from which the
content was sourced [Exhibit 11] (though omitted) had the following commentary
accompanying it which reinforced the matter in itself:
Back almost to square one.
Although the judicial review claim for mandatory order was not entirely
successful in mandating the Magistrates' Court to state the case (other than the
draft), it would never have been known there was a possibility to negotiate the
terms of a recognizance at the hearing. It took this process to prompt a response
from the Justices at Grimsby Magistrates' Court.
The next move then will be to arrange to appear before the Magistrates' Court to
agree terms of a recognizance.

Receipt of correspondence acknowledged after judicial review claim withdrawn

15.

The Council had acknowledged receiving letters (email attachments) by way of 'read
receipts' returned on 15 January [Exhibit 15], 14 February [Exhibit 16] and 23 April
2014 [Exhibit 17] in respect of letters dated 10 January [Exhibit 18], 13 February
[Exhibit 19] and 22 April 2014 [Exhibit 20]. Those letters, which were copies of
correspondence sent to the Justices' Clerk concerned matters that left no doubt that the
high court appeal was still being pursued, and sent after the judicial review claim for
mandatory order was withdrawn.

16.

The appropriation of monies was supported by the Council on the basis that it believed
the appeal had been withdrawn, and on that basis alone. The council officer had
therefore wilfully made a statement material in the proceeding, which he knew was
untrue. As a consequence the Council now has a court order enabling it to enforce a
fraudulently obtained sum, which is likely to accumulate because of additional costs
which will over time to be sufficient in amount so the council will claim justification in
taking measures such as bankruptcy, charging order or applying for a custodial sentence.

Improper exercise of police powers and privileges

17.

HPs decision not to act, especially in light of the indisputable evidence must amount to
improperly exercising police powers under subsections (5) and (6) of Section 26 of the
Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 [Exhibit 21] as clearly the failure to exercise a
power is to the detriment of another person.

18.

This statement is true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Dated this 25th day of April 2016

Signed:

Exhibits 1 21
Omitted
Request complete paper

Page 1 of 1

From:
To:
Cc:

Sent:
Attach:
Subject:

<
@gmail.com>
<peter.hanmer@nelincs.gov.uk>
<Tony.Maione@Nelincs.gov.uk>; <rob.walsh@nelincs.gov.uk>; "Res - Customer Services" <ResCustomerServices@nelincs.gov.uk>; <christina.mcgilligan@nelincs.gov.uk>;
<philip.jackson@nelincs.gov.uk>
10 May 2016 13:15
7 Nov 2015 - ocj-complaint-0913.pdf; Perjury to Commit Fraud - 2 Dec 15.pdf; Section 1
Magistrates court complaint - draft.pdf
Fw: False statement to defraud through council tax liability application

Dear Mr Hanmer
I would like to know what progress has been made regarding one of NELC's employees committing perjury
to defraud me.
I have had no reply in almost three weeks and would have expected to have had at least acknowledgement
after a day or so.
Yours sincerely
.

From:
To:
Cc:

Sent:
Attach:
Subject:

"Maione, Tony" <Tony.Maione@Nelincs.gov.uk>

<
@gmail.com>
"Hanmer, Peter" <Peter.Hanmer@nlbusinessconnect.co.uk>; "Cllr - Jackson, Philip"
<philip.jackson@nelincs.gov.uk>; "Cllr - McGilligan-Fell, Christina"
<Christina.McGilliganFell@nelincs.gov.uk>; "Res - Customer Services" <ResCustomerServices@nelincs.gov.uk>; "Marsh, Mary" <Mary.Marsh@nelincs.gov.uk>
12 May 2016 15:19
Letter Mr
110615.doc
RE: False statement to defraud through council tax liability application

Dear Mr
Please find attached a response to your email below

Kind regards
Tony
Tony Maione, Solicitor
Assistant Director Law and Monitoring Officer
North East Lincolnshire Council
Municipal Offices, Town Hall Square, Grimsby, DN31 1HU DX13536 Grimsby 1

: 01472 324373 or 07799 821348
: Tony.Maione@nelincs.gov.uk

06/08/2016

Your Ref:
Our ref: TM / 020503
If telephoning or calling please ask for: Tony Maione
Tel:

01472 324373

e-mail:

tony.maione@nelincs.gov.uk

11 May 2016
Mr

@gmail.com

Tony Maione - Monitoring Officer and

Chief Legal Officer Law
Solicitor, LL.B. (Hons), LL.M.

Dear Mr
Re: Claims of false statement to defraud through council tax liability application
I have reviewed your email dated 21 April 2016 and as you have commenced legal
proceedings in relation to this matter and as perjury allegations are matter for the court,
the Council is of the opinion that this issue should be dealt with via the court process in
this instance.
The Council would like to confirm that the address for service of any legal documents is:
Tony Maione, Chief Legal Officer
Legal Services
North East Lincolnshire Council
Municipal Offices,
Town Hall Square,
Grimsby,
North East Lincolnshire,
DN31 1HU.
Yours sincerely

Tony Maione, Solicitor

Chief Legal Officer and Monitoring Officer

Municipal Offices, Town Hall Square, Grimsby, North East Lincolnshire, DN31 1HU
Telephone (01472) 313131 Fax (01472) 324022, DX13536, Grimsby 1

Page 1 of 1

From:
To:
Cc:

Sent:
Attach:
Subject:

<
@gmail.com>
"Hanmer, Peter" <Peter.Hanmer@nlbusinessconnect.co.uk>; <peter.hanmer@nelincs.gov.uk>
"Maione, Tony" <Tony.Maione@Nelincs.gov.uk>; "Cllr - Jackson, Philip"
<philip.jackson@nelincs.gov.uk>; "Cllr - McGilligan-Fell, Christina"
<Christina.McGilliganFell@nelincs.gov.uk>; <christina.mcgilligan-fell@nelincs.gov.uk>; "Res Customer Services" <Res-CustomerServices@nelincs.gov.uk>; "Marsh, Mary"
<Mary.Marsh@nelincs.gov.uk>; <rob.walsh@nelincs.gov.uk>
13 May 2016 17:04
Letter Mr
110615.doc
Re: False statement to defraud through council tax liability application

Dear Mr Hanmer
Neither of my emails (see below) have been responded to or acknowledged, however, Tony Maione, North
East Lincolnshire Council's Chief Legal and Monitoring Officer, has taken it upon himself to respond on your
behalf (see attached) on 11 May 2016.
Mr Maione is exploiting the legal proceedings I commenced in order for the council to avoid its duty of
investigating the fraud under its own policy. This approach is clearly inappropriate as his function is to ensure
the law is complied with in all the authority's decision making. The Council obviously sees his role differently,
which in this matter is to bailout the council for committing a criminal offence against one of what are termed
customers.
Presumably the Council has deliberately delayed its response with the purpose being so it could be certain that
the judge, in relation to the information laid, exercised his discretion by not issuing a summons for the purpose
of bringing before the court the officer who wrongly stated perjury was not a matter for the police.
Notwithstanding that the police and judge have justified their decisions on entirely spurious grounds, the
decision to institute proceedings was made before the discovering that the alleged fraud should have been
referred by complaints officers immediately to yourself when my formal complaint was submitted, as set out in
my April 21 email.
This matter has highlighted further concerns about the inconsistency in the way the authority applies
its policies, which suggests the taxpayer is being unnecessarily burdened in respect of the resources dedicated
for their development and salaries attributed to the team supporting them.
I trust now that the council's failure has been highlighted, the procedure can commence in accordance with the
'Fraud Response Plan' as detailed in my April 21 email and as service manager you inform me of the steps
being taken to address the matter.

Yours sincerely

06/08/2016

Page 1 of 1

From:
To:
Sent:
Attach:
Subject:

<
@gmail.com>
<A.Hobley@coinweb.lgo.org.uk>
16 May 2016 13:05
Rossendales 11 May 2016.pdf
Re: Confidential: Case ID - 15016673

Dear Mr Hobley

Complaint Reference 15 020 295

I think you should be informed that North East Lincolnshire Council has appointed Rossendales bailiffs to
enforce the alleged outstanding Council Tax (see attached letter). The Council has this power only on account
of being successful in hoodwinking the judge that it had been a legitimate approach to divert monies intended
for the current year's account to another sum which it had agreed in writing was suspended whilst being
disputed.
Although the schedule of fees referred to in the letter was not enclosed as stated, I believe those fees are
likely to amount to 310, comprising a 75 compliance fee and 235 enforcement charge which when added
to the unwarranted summons costs will amount to 430 the sum which I will potentially be out of pocket.
If you refer to my complaint 21 March 2016 under the heading "what do you think the body should do to put
things right", my prediction has the makings of being very accurate (see quoted paragraph).
"The seriousness of the failure to take these measures can not be over stated. Prompt action is required
to ensure that the immediate consequences of the error are remedied and also to prevent unwarranted
enforcement measures that may otherwise follow. Should the error not be remedied it is likely a
constant cycle of recovery action will result, incurring additional costs which will accumulate over time to
be sufficient in amount that the council will achieve its clearly vindictive aim of justifying taking action
such as bankruptcy or imposing a custodial sentence."
It is not feasible that Rossendales will be successful in recovering any of this from me as the only option
available to them is to take control of a vehicle as it is not obligatory to let a bailiff into your home. As I do not
currently own a car that option is out. The Council does not have the option of taking monies from my income
because I have none whatsoever, only outgoings.
I see the only option available, after the likely failure of Rossendales, will be for the Council to apply to the
court for committal and will predictably strengthen its case with the argument that I had escalated the matter to
the LGO and had an unsuccessful outcome and so claim that the LGO endorsed the council's actions. This
would of course be a distortion because my complaint was well founded, and would if the organisation had
investigated, found that the council was at fault and my account had been maladministered. It was also in
possession of enough evidence within the content of the complaint to have had legitimate cause to raise
concerns via the Councils legal department regarding fraud.
In anticipation of having to defend myself in court at a potential committal hearing I request that a letter is
produced explaining that the reason why the Ombudsman did not investigate my complaint was not because it
lacked merit and would unlikely find fault with the council, but because the organisation has only finite
resources and so does not extend to investigating every complaint.

Yours sincerely

06/08/2016

PO Box 324
Rossendale
BB4 0GE
Tel:
Fax:
Email:

2845/3371/1/4/504/940163

Mr

0844701 3980
0844 701 3982
enquiries@rossendales.com

Calls may be recorded/monitored for quality control and training purposes

Grimsby

Calls to our 0845 numbers cost 2p per minute and calls to our 0844 numbers cost
6p per minute, plus your phone company's access Charge.

Re Address

Grimsby

Date: 11th May 2016

Rossendafes Ltd on behalf of North East Lincolnshire Council Revenues & Benefits
Service - C Tax - TCE Ref: 5501
Rossendales Ref: 28628956
All enquiries concerning this document MUST be made to Rossendales Ltd., not
North East Lincolnshire Council Revenues & Benefits Service
COUNCIL TAX NOTICE OF ISSUE OF LIABILITY ORDER
INFORMATION PRELIMINARY TO DISTRESS
Following an application made by North East Lincolnshire Council a liability order was issued against you on
30/10/2015 in respect of unpaid Council Tax of 211.00 (including costs).
The balance outstanding in respect of the order is 211.00.
You must pay this sum IN FUll immediately and direct to Rossendales Ltd., NOT THE COUNCIL.

To make immediate payment call our 24 hour automated

payment line 0845 078 1194 quoting 28628956
Please note that any other amounts you may owe to the Council that are not covered by this liability order
need to be paid as previously advised. Details on how to pay the amount shown above are explained on the
enclosed leaflet.
If you cannot pay in full or dispute the amount due then either write to us at the address above or telephone
us on 0844 701 3980 immediately.
If payment is not made in full within 14 days from the date of this notice, then distress may be levied upon
your possessions. This means that we can list and remove your belongings and sell them at public auction to
pay the amount which you owe.
If you want us to consider a payment arrangement you must complete the enclosed questionnaire in full,
including details of your offer, and send-it to us, NOT THE COUNCIL, within 7 days. If we accept your offer
we will write to you to confirm this within 7 days of receiving your offer. If your offer is unacceptable we will
visit to levy distress, and you will have to pay extra fees as shown on the enclosed schedule.

ROSSENDALES LTD

Registered in England No 1501584 VAT Reg No 354 703165

Rossendales limited registered office: Rutland House, 8th Floor, 148 Edmund Street, Birmingham, B3 2JR
Authorised and Regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority for accounts formed under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (amended 2006)

Page 1 of 1

From:
To:
Cc:

Sent:
Subject:

"Maione, Tony" <Tony.Maione@Nelincs.gov.uk>

<
@gmail.com>
"Cllr - Jackson, Philip" <philip.jackson@nelincs.gov.uk>; "Cllr - McGilligan-Fell, Christina"
<Christina.McGilliganFell@nelincs.gov.uk>; "Cllr - McGilligan-Fell, Christina"
<Christina.McGilliganFell@nelincs.gov.uk>; "Res - Customer Services" <ResCustomerServices@nelincs.gov.uk>; "Marsh, Mary" <Mary.Marsh@nelincs.gov.uk> "Walsh, Rob"
<Rob.Walsh@Nelincs.gov.uk>;"Hanmer, Peter" <Peter.Hanmer@nlbusinessconnect.co.uk>
18 May 2016 16:43
RE: False statement to defraud through council tax liability application

Dear Mr

Thank you for your email of 13 May 2016 to my colleague Mr Hanmer. I have reviewed the
Councils Whistleblowing (Raising a Concern) Policy (the Policy) in terms of the Councils
response to you on the matters you have raised. The procedure that has been followed in
this matter is considered to be in line with the Policy. The policy provides that upon receipt
of a potential Whistleblowing matter that it be referred to myself for consideration and
discussion with Mr Hanmer, Head of Audit and Assurance and other relevant colleagues. I
can confirm that this consideration and discussion duly took place prior to my letter to you of
11 May 2016 and that our Whistleblowing arrangements are subject to regular review.
Opportunities to learn from matters raised by members of the public, such as yourself, are
taken and accordingly the Audit team are considering your correspondence. The Audit team
will consider issues, if any, that havent already been dealt with via the Councils complaints
procedure.
As your correspondence contained serious allegations including perjury, this matter was
passed to me which is standard practice. It is right and proper for you to pursue allegations
of this nature through the Courts. You will no doubt appreciate that making allegations
including perjury which are found to be unsubstantiated and/or not evidenced is itself a
serious matter.
Yours sincerely
Tony
Tony Maione, Solicitor
Assistant Director Law and Monitoring Officer
North East Lincolnshire Council
Municipal Offices, Town Hall Square, Grimsby, DN31 1HU DX13536 Grimsby 1

: 01472 324373 or 07799 821348
: Tony.Maione@nelincs.gov.uk

06/08/2016

Page 1 of 2

From:
To:
Cc:

Sent:
Subject:

<
@gmail.com>
"Maione, Tony" <Tony.Maione@Nelincs.gov.uk>
"Cllr - Jackson, Philip" <philip.jackson@nelincs.gov.uk>; "Cllr - McGilligan-Fell, Christina"
<Christina.McGilliganFell@nelincs.gov.uk>; "Res - Customer Services" <ResCustomerServices@nelincs.gov.uk>; "Marsh, Mary" <Mary.Marsh@nelincs.gov.uk> "Walsh, Rob"
<Rob.Walsh@Nelincs.gov.uk>;"Hanmer, Peter" <Peter.Hanmer@nlbusinessconnect.co.uk>;
<peter.hanmer@nelincs.gov.uk>; <christina.mcgilligan-fell@nelincs.gov.uk>
22 May 2016 18:16
Re: False statement to defraud through council tax liability application

Dear Mr Maione
Further to your 18 May email I am trying to establish the council's position in relation to the chart setting out
how concerns can be raised (Appendix two, whistleblowing policy). I would therefore like it confirming whether
or not your correspondence is effectively the final decision after checks have been made to determine 'if
concern falls within the Whistleblowing policy'.
My interpretation of your comments is that you have made the final decision and that decision is no, the
consequences being that the matter will be kept from the scrutiny of the police, Local Government
Ombudsman and/or the external auditor for example. Rather, the matter will be confined within the council
thus enabling a cover-up by one of its bogus internal procedures allowing the department unhindered to
pursue the kind of criminal activity that I have been a victim of.
If how I have described above is the correct interpretation, I am in no doubt that the statutory function, which
you as Monitoring Officer (a public office holder) have a duty to carry out, is not being fulfilled in the
way defined in law.
The role entails specifically ensuring that the Council, its Officers, etc., maintain the highest standards of
conduct and reporting on matters that are, or are likely to be, illegal or amount to maladministration.

Unsubstantiated allegations
I assume by emphasising the seriousness of the matter if my allegations were found to be unsubstantiated
etc., you are implying a threat. If you have considered the evidence, which I assume you have, you will know
that the scenario suggested makes no sense as my evidence supports the allegations beyond all doubt.
Rather than implying that my allegation may be false or malicious the focus ought to be on the council's failure
to appoint an officer who is prepared to perform the statutory duties which are conferred on a monitoring
officer by virtue of Part III of the Local Government Act 2000.

Failure of Complaints officers to refer matters concerning fraud

There is a serious failure of complaints officers adhering to the Whistleblowing policy in not referring matters
immediately concerning fraud to the Audit, Risk, Insurance and Corporate Fraud team. This has been evident
in the present case which because of the failure has led to an inordinate amount of injustice. For example,
intervention would have rendered the completion of the Corporate Feedback procedure unnecessary, plus
saved unnecessarily engaging in lengthy representations to the Local Government Ombudsman.
This matter should have been referred to the Corporate Fraud team in November 2015 further to my
correspondence on the 10th alleging that the council fraudulently obtained a liability order from the court in
order to enforce a sum which, if it had conducted its affairs lawfully would not be entitled. The same can be
said for an earlier submission dated 15 March 2014 concerning a related issue that also led to an inordinate
amount of injustice.
In both cases the Chief Executive endorsed the investigating officer's reports, declaring that he had
considered the findings of the investigations to have been correctly and fairly carried out and for such
acquiescence he should be held accountable.

The council's position

06/08/2016

Page 2 of 2

I would like, as set out at the beginning of this email, the council's position clarifying in this matter, e.g., has
the council no intention of taking the matter seriously and internally processing it, or has it, or will it be taking
the appropriate steps and referring it to the police?

Yours sincerely

06/08/2016

Notice of Enforcement
This notice must be given by the enforcement agent or the enforcement agent's office.

Please read this notice - it is important

1441/4091/1/3/536/954663

Mr
Grimsby

Date notice issued

Enforcement agent
reference number

About this notice

25th May 2016

28628956

You have been sent this notice of enforcement because you have not paid money that you owe.

Who you owe money to

North East Lincolnshire Council

The amount you owe them

211.00

Their ref./account no.

(if applicable)

Enforcement
details

5501

Details of the court judgement or order or enforcement power by virtue of which the debt is enforceable
A Liability Order has been granted against you on the 30/10/2015 for non payment of Council
Tax and costs at

Sum outstanding

, Grimsby,

Debt

Interest

Compliance stage fee

Total sum
outstanding

211.00

0.00

75.00

286.00
(as at the date of this notice)

Registered in England and Wales No 1501584 VAT Reg No 354 703 165
Rossendales limited registered office: Rutland House, 8th Floor, 148 Edmund Street, Birmingham, B3 2JR

When to make

You must pay, or agree a payment arrangement with the enforcement agent, by:

payment
Date

8th June 2016

Time

23:59

If you do not pay

If you do not pay or agree a payment arrangement by the date above, an enforcement agent will visit
you and may seize your belongings - this is called 'taking control'. These belongings may then be
sold to pay the money you owe. These actions will increase the costs of enforcement and these costs
will be added to the amount already owed.

Possible
additional fees
and expenses of
enforcement

If the sum outstanding remains unpaid or you have not agreed a payment arrangement by the date
and time above you may be charged the following (enforcement agent to detail further possible fees
and expenses

Stage

Amount

Enforcement Agent Visit to Take Control of Goods

235.00 + if the debt is above

1500, 7.5% of the amount
above 1500

Enforcement Visit to Remove Goods

110.00 + if the debt is above

1500, 7.5% of the amount
above 1500

Where Removal and sale takes place

Storage Costs
Locksmiths costs
Any relevant Court Application fees

Actual costs
Actual costs
Actual fees

Auctioneers costs where the sale is held on the

Auctioneers premises
Auctioneers Commission

Auctioneers out of pocket expenses

Reasonable Advertising costs

Not exceeding 15% of the

sum realised
Actual costs
Actual costs

Auctioneers costs where the sale is held on

other
premises
Auctioneers Commission
Auctioneers out of pocket expenses
Reasonable Advertising costs
Internet auction costs
In some circumstances exceptional costs will apply

Not exceeding 7.5% of the

sum realised
Actual costs
Actual costs
Actual costs
Agreed by Court

Crime report to Humberside Police

26 May 2016

North East Lincolnshire Council has appointed Rossendales bailiffs to enforce

alleged outstanding Council Tax. I have become aware about this after receiving a
letter dated 11 May 2016 from the enforcement firm.

There is no money owed. The council engineered the debt and did so criminally by
lying to the court. This matter is known to Humberside police and although the force
has decided against investigating the matter it may now that there are further
consequences need to review its decision. Incidentally, evidence which proves the
allegations beyond all reasonable doubt has been provided to the force. In assistance I
will provide you with the relevant reference which is CO 461/15.

Rossendales letter refers to a schedule of fees which had not been enclosed, perhaps
due to an oversight or because the generic letter had not been updated and contained
information that was once necessary but not now. In any event, I believe those fees
are likely to amount to 310, comprising a 75 compliance fee and 235 enforcement
charge which when added to the unwarranted summons costs will amount to 430. It
is therefore reasonable to assume that at this stage the sum that the council will
attempt to defraud me of will be 430.
In reference to CO 461/15, my prediction had the makings of being accurate. See
quoted paragraphs of my 30 December 2015 email to Inspector Allan Harvey in this
matter:
Action

needs taking sooner rather than later to ensure that the immediate

consequences of the fraud is remedied. This will not be achieved by having to

complete complaint and subsequent appeal procedures which guarantee
nothing at the end. The appropriate level of investigation can be evaluated
after the immediate risk of the consequences of the crimes have been removed.

The consequences do not stop at the fraudulently obtained court cost.

Unnecessary enforcement measures will follow, incurring additional costs
which will accumulate over time to be sufficient in amount that the council
will achieve its vindictive aim and be able to take insolvency, bankruptcy or
custodial action."

NELCs Revenues & Benefits service has not as you would have expected considered
it a close shave to have avoided being the subject of a fraud investigation, but
emboldened it to take further liberties with the law and seen it as a green light to
continue its vendetta.

As Im sure the force knows where this is heading, I expect now should be an
appropriate time to have this matter investigated.

Page 1 of 1

From:
To:
Cc:

Sent:
Subject:

"Maione, Tony" <Tony.Maione@Nelincs.gov.uk>

<
@gmail.com>
"Cllr - Jackson, Philip" <philip.jackson@nelincs.gov.uk>; "Cllr - McGilligan-Fell, Christina"
<Christina.McGilliganFell@nelincs.gov.uk>; "Res - Customer Services" <ResCustomerServices@nelincs.gov.uk>; "Marsh, Mary" <Mary.Marsh@nelincs.gov.uk> "Walsh, Rob"
<Rob.Walsh@Nelincs.gov.uk>;"Hanmer, Peter" <Peter.Hanmer@nlbusinessconnect.co.uk>;
"Hanmer, Peter" <Peter.Hanmer@nlbusinessconnect.co.uk>; "Cllr - McGilligan-Fell, Christina"
<Christina.McGilliganFell@nelincs.gov.uk>
26 May 2016 16:32
RE: False statement to defraud through council tax liability application

Dear Mr ,
Thank you for your email below.
I can confirm that the Councils Internal Audit team, led by Mr Hanmer, will be looking into the matters you
have raised as laid out in earlier correspondence.
If you believe that the Courts, the police, the Local Government Ombudsman, District Audit or any
combination of those, and/or any other external scrutiny should be brought to bear it is of course within your
right to pursue that.

Kind regards
Tony
Tony Maione, Solicitor
Chief Legal Officer and Monitoring Officer
North East Lincolnshire Council
Municipal Offices, Town Hall Square, Grimsby, DN31 1HU DX13536 Grimsby 1

: 01472 324373 or 07799 821348
: Tony.Maione@nelincs.gov.uk

06/08/2016

Page 1 of 1

From:
To:
Cc:

Sent:
Subject:

<
@gmail.com>
"Maione, Tony" <Tony.Maione@Nelincs.gov.uk>
"Cllr - Jackson, Philip" <philip.jackson@nelincs.gov.uk>; "Cllr - McGilligan-Fell, Christina"
<Christina.McGilliganFell@nelincs.gov.uk>; "Res - Customer Services" <ResCustomerServices@nelincs.gov.uk>; "Marsh, Mary" <Mary.Marsh@nelincs.gov.uk> "Walsh, Rob"
<Rob.Walsh@Nelincs.gov.uk>;"Hanmer, Peter" <Peter.Hanmer@nlbusinessconnect.co.uk>;
<peter.hanmer@nelincs.gov.uk>; <christina.mcgilligan-fell@nelincs.gov.uk>
31 May 2016 21:41
Re: False statement to defraud through council tax liability application

Dear Mr Maione,
It doesn't look like it's going to be easy having any of the concerns I've raised addressed regarding the
corruption at North East Lincolnshire Council; nobody it seems has the balls to take any responsibility.
You have however confirmed that the statutory function, which as Monitoring Officer you have a duty to carry
out, is not being fulfilled in the way defined in law. It is still not known whether you have looked at the papers,
although the evidence leads me to think not because on proper consideration you would be left with no option
than to take responsibility for dealing with the matter as it is inconceivable what line of defence could be
mounted against the claim.
I would like the Monitoring Officer's role defining from the council's perspective because it differs from my
understanding. The impression given is the person holding office is expected to provide legal representation
for the Council in defence against legal challenge. However, I understand the role should function in a way to
ensure that the Council, its Officers, etc., maintain the highest standards of conduct and should report on
matters that are, or are likely to be, illegal or amount to maladministration within the council.
If the latter description defines the proper function then it would be your duty as opposed to my right to involve
the relevant bodies, be that the police, Court, External Audit etc.
I would like all the matters which have not been addressed that I raised in previous correspondence dealing
with and being informed how I can be sure that the matter is being properly addressed.

Yours sincerely

06/08/2016

PO Box 324
Rossendale
BB4 0GE

Mr

Tel:
Fax:
Email:

Grimsby

Calls may be recorded/monitored for quality control and training purposes

4216/10465/1/2/531/964267

0844701 3980
0844 701 3982
enquiries@rossendales.com

Calls to our 0845 numbers cost 2p per minute and calls to our 0844 numbers cost
6p per minute, plus your phone company's access Charge.

Re Address
Grimsby

Client: North East Lincolnshire Council - Council Tax

Outstanding Amount: 286.00
Reference Number: 5501
Our Reference: 28628956
Date: 6th June 2016
REMINDER Notice of Enforcement - Please Do Not Ignore
Dear Mr
We wrote to you recently advising of the intention to make a visit to your property for the purpose of taking
control of your goods for the unpaid amount below, relating to Council Tax and costs outstanding to North
East Lincolnshire Council for a court order issued against you on the 30/10/2015.
North East Lincolnshire Council amount:
Enforcement Costs incurred:
Paid
Total Amount Due:

211.00
75.00
0.00
286.00

To avoid this action you were required to make contact or make arrangements to pay this account, to date
suitable arrangements have not been made and your account still remains outstanding. If you do not deal
with this matter now, an enforcement agent will visit your property for the purpose of taking control
of goods.
The total amount due shown above needs to be paid in full direct to Rossendales Ltd., NOT THE COUNCIL
immediately otherwise further action will be taken to recover the amount due. Additional costs of a minimum
of 235.00 will be applicable if we are required to take further action to secure payment, which may include
goods being removed and sold. Details of these costs are detailed on the back of this notice
Request for Payment Arrangement
If you need extra time to pay, please complete the income and expenditure form sent with this letter and
return the information to us immediately. Please note that your offer of payment may not be accepted and we
may require you to pay a higher amount than you have offered. We will write to you and let you know if your
payment offer has been agreed, or whether it will have to be increased.
For and on behalf of
Rossendales Limited

Registered in England No 1501584 VAT Reg No 354 703165

Rossendales limited registered office: Rutland House, 8th Floor, 148 Edmund Street, Birmingham, B3 2JR
Authorised and Regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority for accounts formed under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (amended 2006)

Page 1 of 1

From:
To:
Cc:

Sent:
Subject:

"Maione, Tony" <Tony.Maione@Nelincs.gov.uk>

@gmail.com>

<
"Cllr - Jackson, Philip" <philip.jackson@nelincs.gov.uk>; "Cllr - McGilligan-Fell, Christina"
<Christina.McGilliganFell@nelincs.gov.uk>; "Res - Customer Services" <ResCustomerServices@nelincs.gov.uk>; "Marsh, Mary" <Mary.Marsh@nelincs.gov.uk> "Walsh, Rob"
<Rob.Walsh@Nelincs.gov.uk>;"Hanmer, Peter" <Peter.Hanmer@nlbusinessconnect.co.uk>;
"Hanmer, Peter" <Peter.Hanmer@nlbusinessconnect.co.uk>; "Cllr - McGilligan-Fell, Christina"
<Christina.McGilliganFell@nelincs.gov.uk>
08 June 2016 15:57
RE: False statement to defraud through council tax liability application

Dear Mr ,
I repeat my point below that if you believe that the Courts, the police, the Local Government Ombudsman,
District Audit or any combination of those, and/or any other external scrutiny should be brought to bear it is
of course within your right to pursue that.
As I have already confirmed to you, my colleague Mr Hanmer (Internal Audit) has been asked to consider this
matter.
The Councils Constitution includes sections setting out the functions of the Monitoring Officer. The
Councils Constitution is available for inspection on the Councils website.
I now consider that that this matter is being addressed appropriately and therefore will not be responding to
further emails you may send of a similar nature. You will be updated as appropriate of the outcome from Mr
Hanmers review.

Kind regards
Tony
Tony Maione, Solicitor
Chief Legal Officer and Monitoring Officer
North East Lincolnshire Council

06/08/2016

PO Box 324
Rossendale
BB4 0GE
Tel:
Fax:
Email:

1152/3173/1/1/532/973996

Mr
Grimsby

0844701 3980
0844 701 3982
enquiries@rossendales.com

Calls may be recorded/monitored for quality control and training purposes

Calls to our 0845 numbers cost 2p per minute and calls to our 0844 numbers cost
6p per minute, plus your phone company's access Charge.

Re Address
Grimsby

Client: North East Lincolnshire Council - Council Tax

Outstanding Amount: 286.00
Reference Number: 5501
Our Reference: 28628956
Date: 16th June 2016
Notice of Enforcement Agent Visit Please Do Not Ignore
Dear Mr
As you have ignored all previous correspondence on this matter I now inform you that your debt has been
allocated to an Enforcement Agent to visit your address to recover the amount detailed below, relating to
Council Tax and costs outstanding to North East Lincolnshire Council for a court order issued against you on
30/10/2015
North East Lincolnshire Council amount:
Enforcement Costs incurred:
Paid
Total Amount Due:

211.00
75.00
0.00
286.00

When the Enforcement Agent visits your address, this will immediately result in further costs of a
minimum of 235.00 being added to your bill.
To avoid these costs the total amount due shown above needs to be paid in full direct to Rossendales Ltd.,
NOT THE COUNCIL immediately and before the visit is made.
Any goods that you own are now at risk of being removed and sold, all potential costs are shown on the back
of this notice.
The details on how to pay the amount shown are on the back of this notice.
If you cannot pay in full or dispute the amount due then you need to contact us immediately; details on how
to do this are shown on the back of this notice.
Please note that any other amounts you may owe to the Council that are not covered by this court order
need to be paid as previously advised.
For and on behalf of
Rossendales Limited

Registered in England No 1501584 VAT Reg No 354 703165

Rossendales limited registered office: Rutland House, 8th Floor, 148 Edmund Street, Birmingham, B3 2JR
Authorised and Regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority for accounts formed under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (amended 2006)

Page 1 of 1

From:
To:
Cc:
Sent:
Subject:

"Hanmer, Peter" <Peter.Hanmer@nlbusinessconnect.co.uk

<
@gmail.com>
"Maione, Tony" <Tony.Maione@Nelincs.gov.uk>; "Res - Customer Services" <ResCustomerServices@nelincs.gov.uk>
23 June 2016 16:52
False statement to defraud through council tax liability application

Dear Mr
As set out in previous correspondence from Mr Maione, the Councils monitoring officer, the audit team has
now reviewed the allegations contained in your email to me dated 22 April 2016 under the auspices of the
Councils whistleblowing policy. A review of all relevant correspondence, court papers and interviews with key
officers has taken place as part of this process. It has been concluded that the actions taken by officers
regarding your Council Tax account were correct based on the information and correspondence made
available to them at the time, and we have found no evidence that any fraudulent activity has taken place.
I note your comments around the complaints policy and the fraud response plan in relation to the handling of
complaints involving allegations of fraud and corruption and these will be considered when the Council
updates both policies during 2016/17.
Kind regards
Peter Hanmer

Peter Hanmer, Head of Audit and Assurance, Northern Lincolnshire Business Connect
Municipal Buildings, Town Hall Square, Grimsby, DN31 3HU
Telephone (01472) 323799 peter.hanmer@NLBusinessConnect.co.uk

06/08/2016

Page 1 of 2

From:
To:
Cc:

Sent:
Attach:
Subject:

<
@gmail.com>
"Hanmer, Peter" <Peter.Hanmer@nlbusinessconnect.co.uk>;<peter.hanmer@nelincs.gov.uk>;
"Res - Customer Services" <Res-CustomerServices@nelincs.gov.uk
"Cllr - Jackson, Philip" <philip.jackson@nelincs.gov.uk>; "Cllr - McGilligan-Fell, Christina"
<Christina.McGilliganFell@nelincs.gov.uk>; "Marsh, Mary" <Mary.Marsh@nelincs.gov.uk>
"Walsh, Rob" <Rob.Walsh@Nelincs.gov.uk>; "Maione, Tony" <Tony.Maione@Nelincs.gov.uk>;
<ray.oxby@nelincs.gov.uk>; <A.Hobley@coinweb.lgo.org.uk>;
<PSBAdmin@humberside.pnn.police.uk>; <pcc@humberside.pnn.police.uk>; "!enquiries"
<enquiries@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk>; <christina.mcgilligan-fell@nelincs.gov.uk>
27 June 2016 17:10
Re_ Application to State a Case - Grimsby Magistrates' Court.eml; R (on the application of
Reverend Nicolson) v Tottenham Magistrates.doc; 20130208
.doc; T - S & L Order Feb
14 2013.pdf
Re: False statement to defraud through council tax liability application

Dear Mr Hanmer
It won't come as any surprise that I am completely dissatisfied with your response and consider it wholly
unacceptable. Though I anticipated the council's dealing with the matter would be a sham, that makes it no
less acceptable.
Of course, you provide no evidence whatsoever to support your decision because it would be impossible to do
so as you are contending, without any grounds, the concrete evidence provided you which is not only beyond
reasonable doubt but beyond all doubt.
The decision is simply indefensible and the fact that the guilty parties have been protected by the process is
evident that the council is corrupt, with the responsibility for the corruption lying with the Monitoring Officer,
Tony Maione and Chief executive, Rob Walsh.
It is the role of the Council's Monitoring Officer to report on matters he believes are, or are likely to be illegal
and is responsible to ensure that the Council, its Officers and elected members maintain the highest
standards of conduct. Clearly by turning a blind eye in this matter he has failed in discharging his statutory
duty, causing not only gross injustice to me as the taxpayer affected by continual harassment of officers
pursuing a vendetta, but has also resulted in damaging the reputation of the Council.
Officers should not, but are being allowed to abuse their positions in pursuit of personal vendettas, costing
hundreds of thousands of pounds of taxpayers money, over a relatively insignificant sum which in any event
has been criminally engineered as a debt that is not owed by those officers purely for their own perverse
satisfaction. There is no place within a local authority for individuals of this kind and it is of paramount
importance that when such practices are highlighted, the person within the council with responsibility acts on
the information by dismissing those guilty and has the matter reported to the police.
Separate but related issue
There is another failure of the Monitoring Officer discharging his statutory duty, which until now has not
been dealt with, but nevertheless needs investigating as it has had a material impact on the present issues.
The matter relates to 2013 when Rob Walsh, as Monitoring Officer was the person responsible for ensuring
that the Council's decision making was within the law.
Background
Grimsby Magistrates Court had been obstructing the progress of an application to state a case for an appeal
to the high court in the matter of NELC's application for a council tax liability order. It was looking unlikely that
the court would produce the document as was required for the case to continue because of the failure to
cooperate.
In line with pre-action protocol for a claim for mandatory order, alternative remedies were suggested in an
email to the Justices' Clerk with the council copied in on 6 February 2013 (see attached). In the case of the
council, the remedy suggested was to apply to the Magistrates court under section 82 of the Local
Government Act 2003 to either quash the liability order for 60 obtained on the 2nd November 2012, or apply
for a lesser amount than that for which the original order was made that was equal to the sum that had
already been paid (in respect of reasonable costs).

06/08/2016

Page 2 of 2
On 8 February 2013 (also attached) the council replied stating it was not prepared to apply to the Magistrates
Court to quash the liability order as it claimed it had been correctly obtained.
I disputed this in a letter dated 14 February 2013 (attached) on the grounds that the application should have
ceased when the aggregate of the sum outstanding and an amount equal to the costs reasonably incurred by
the authority was paid. In any event, the letter dated 5 February 2013 attached the email (6 February 2013),
pointed out that the court issued a liability order where there was no evidence on which the Magistrates could
have found their decision. Consequently, one of the questions in law asked in the application was whether the
costs being disputed as unreasonable should have been awarded by the court without evidence from the
council to support them.
We now know that they shouldn't have; it was unlawful to award costs without proof of how they had been
arrived at. This has been confirmed in the case between Tottenham Magistrates and the Reverend Paul
Nicolson (see case attached). It was therefore incorrect for the council to state in its letter of 8 February 2013
that the liability order had been correctly obtained (See para 61 in R (Nicolson) v Tottenham Magistrates
[2015] EWHC 1252 (Admin), attached):
" 61. This application for judicial review of the decision taken by the Magistrates must therefore
succeed. I was told that since the hearing the order for costs against the Claimant has been withdrawn,
but that does not render the proceedings academic; as I have said, it raises issues of wider public
importance. Had the order not been withdrawn, I would have quashed it. Since it has been withdrawn, I
will declare that the order was unlawful, because:
i) the Magistrates did not have sufficient relevant information before them to reach a proper judicial
determination of whether the costs claimed represented costs reasonably incurred by the Council in
obtaining the liability order; "
Moreover, the council has since produced a calculation which proves that expenditure it was claiming was not
actually incurred by the council in respect of my case. It is evident from the breakdown that those costs were
attributable to activities such as officers who engaged with customers (telephone calls etc) to negotiate
payment arrangements and to monitor them, and therefore completely irrelevant to my case and unlawfully
claimed.
It was the person appointed Monitoring Officer at that time who was responsible for the decision made not to
apply to the Magistrates court as suggested in the pre-action protocol as informed in the 8 February 2013
letter on the basis that the liability order had been correctly obtained.
Consequences
This failure to apply lawful and proportionate decision making, hence not taking the correct remedy has led to
years of injustice as it has enabled the Council to misallocate payment to the sum subject to appeal when
payments have clearly been intended for the years council tax account which was current when paid. Having
balances outstanding for different years and the opportunity that has given the council to engineer payment
arrears, this has led to recovery being taken through the court each year since with further costs added in the
proceedings considered here. That in turn has led to time consuming and fruitless disputes i.e., formal
complaints, escalation of issues to the LGO, police, police appeals and entering into a private prosecution
against the police for negligence by improperly exercising police powers under Section 26 of the Criminal
Justice and Courts Act 2015.
Objective
I would like in addition to having a proper response, with names of those involved in the investigation and
findings properly documented, that this correspondence serves as a formal complaint about the Chief
Executive, Monitoring Officer and all others involved in the investigation process. Naturally as my complaint
alleges irregularity, my expectation is that in accordance with the Council's 'Fraud Response Plan' the matter
is referred to the Audit, Risk, Insurance and Corporate Fraud team immediately on receipt, despite those who
may be referred the matter being some of the officers (elected members) who are the complaint's focus.

Yours sincerely

06/08/2016

Page 1 of 1

From:
To:
Cc:

Sent:
Subject:

"Hanmer, Peter" <Peter.Hanmer@nlbusinessconnect.co.uk

<
@gmail.com>; "Res - Customer Services" <ResCustomerServices@nelincs.gov.uk>
"Cllr - Jackson, Philip" <philip.jackson@nelincs.gov.uk>; "Cllr - McGilligan-Fell, Christina"
<Christina.McGilliganFell@nelincs.gov.uk>; "Marsh, Mary" <Mary.Marsh@nelincs.gov.uk>
"Walsh, Rob" <Rob.Walsh@Nelincs.gov.uk>; "Maione, Tony" <Tony.Maione@Nelincs.gov.uk>;
"Cllr - Oxby, Ray" <Ray.Oxby@nelincs.gov.uk>; "Cllr - McGilligan-Fell, Christina"
<Christina.McGilliganFell@nelincs.gov.uk>
01 July 2016 08:32
RE: False statement to defraud through council tax liability application

Dear Mr ,
Thank you for your email. I can confirm that a detailed investigation was carried out by members of the
audit and assurance team and its work was reviewed by myself. As per my correspondence dated 23 June
we have made our position clear, based on the evidence of the review, and will not be corresponding any
further on the issue.
Kind Regards
Peter Hanmer
Peter Hanmer, Head of Audit and Assurance, Northern Lincolnshire Business Connect
Municipal Buildings, Town Hall Square, Grimsby, DN31 3HU
Telephone (01472) 323799 peter.hanmer@NLBusinessConnect.co.uk

06/08/2016

PO Box 324
Rossendales
BB4 0GE
Tel: 0844 701 3980

Our Ref:

Client & Ref:

SEQ No:

To:
Date:
Time

FOR NON PAYMENT OF COUNCIL TAX / NATIONAL NON DOMESTIC

RATES / ROAD TRAFFIC TMA
ENFORCEMENT AGENT ATTENDANCE
I have attended today with the intention of Taking Control of your goods
to discharge the above debt.

AMOUNT OUTSTANDING
If you cannot pay this amount in full you should be aware that even at this late
stage with an initial payment of

you can still pay by instalments.

You may pay by Postal Order, Cash, Bank Draft or Debit/Credit Card.

Payment should be made direct to the Enforcement Agent below to avoid

unnecessary action

DO NOT DISREGARD THIS NOTICE

Enforcement Agent in Charge:
Contact Number:

KEITH GRICE
07515050577

Calls may be recorded / monitored for quality control and training purposes. Calls to 084 numbers
are free on some BT call plans, but will cost 4 pence per minute from landlines, depending on your
provider and call package. Calls from mobiles may cost more depending on your network.

Authorised and Regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority for accounts formed under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (amended 2006)
Rossendales Ltd, Registered in England & Wales, Reg.Office: Rutland House, 8th Floor, 148 Edmund Street, Birmingham, B3 2JR.
Reg No: 1501584 VAT Reg No: 354 703 165

PO Box 324
Rossendale
BB4 0GE

Mr

Tel:
Fax:
Email:

Grimsby

Calls may be recorded/monitored for quality control and training purposes

2180/7267/1/1/538/995511

0844701 3980
0844 701 3982
enquiries@rossendales.com

Calls to our 0845 numbers cost 2p per minute and calls to our 0844 numbers cost
6p per minute, plus your phone company's access Charge.

Re Address
Grimsby

Client: North East Lincolnshire Council - Council Tax

Outstanding Amount: 521.00
Reference Number: 5501
Our Reference: 28628956
Date: 11th July 2016
Dear Mr

FINAL REMINDER DO NOT IGNORE

North East Lincolnshire Council amount:

Enforcement Costs incurred:
Paid
Total Amount Due:

211.00
310.00
0.00
521.00

Despite previous correspondence you have not made payment to clear the overdue balance above.
When the Enforcement Agent attends with the intention to take control of and remove your goods for the
purpose of sale you will be immediately liable for further enforcement costs as detailed on the back of this
letter.
In order to avoid the removal of your goods you must contact us immediately on 0844 701 3980

NO FURTHER REMINDERS WILL BE ISSUED

Please ensure that all correspondence/payments quote our-reference number and your name and address.
Yours Faithfully
Enforcement Agent Manager

Registered in England No 1501584 VAT Reg No 354 703165

Rossendales limited registered office: Rutland House, 8th Floor, 148 Edmund Street, Birmingham, B3 2JR
Authorised and Regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority for accounts formed under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (amended 2006)

Page 1 of 1

From:
To:
Cc:

Sent:
Subject:

<
@gmail.com>
<enquiries@rossendales.com>
"Cllr - Jackson, Philip" <philip.jackson@nelincs.gov.uk>; <ray.oxby@nelincs.gov.uk>;
<A.Hobley@coinweb.lgo.org.uk>; "!enquiries" <enquiries@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk>; "Hanmer, Peter"
<Peter.Hanmer@nlbusinessconnect.co.uk>; "Maione, Tony" <Tony.Maione@Nelincs.gov.uk>;
<christina.mcgilligan-fell@nelincs.gov.uk>; "Walsh, Rob" <Rob.Walsh@Nelincs.gov.uk>; "Marsh,
Mary" <Mary.Marsh@nelincs.gov.uk>; <newsdesk@grimsbytelegraph.co.uk>; "Jones, Debbie"
<debbie.jones2@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk>
12 July 2016 10:11
Council Tax - North East Lincolnshire Council, Reference Number: 28628956

Dear Sir/Madam
Re: Council Tax - North East Lincolnshire Council, Reference Number: 28628956

Recovery Officers at North East Lincolnshire Council have engaged in a vendetta that has and continues to
waste resources of numerous public services costing taxpayers hundreds of thousands of pounds. Those
responsible are clearly abusing their positions and wouldn't think twice about using any means available to
further their campaign. Clearly they see Rossendales as a way of doing this by having its bailiffs harass me to
attempt recovery of a debt which the council only has permission to enforce as a result of misleading the court
by submitting false evidence.
It is worth pointing out that the vendetta was sparked off by my objection to the council's mishandling of a
complaint a number of years ago into Rossendales application of several hundred pounds in fees for such
things as phantom visits, levying randomly on a vehicle in a residential car park (surprisingly not owned by
myself) and negligently handling sensitive personal information relating to enforcement.
North East Lincolnshire Council has appointed Rossendales knowing full well that none of its bailiffs will be
successful in obtaining any monies from myself and so the work undertaken amounting to 310 accruing so
far in fees will have to be written off.
Despite not owing the debt, I do happen to know that the success of a bailiff obtaining fees from the debtor
relies solely on the taxpayer being unaware that there is no obligation to engage with the enforcement
company.
I suggest that if Rossendales want to recover its losses it does so by demanding compensation from those
officers at the council who have abused their position by instructing Rossendales to further their personal
vendetta.

Yours sincerely
.

06/08/2016

PO Box 324
Rossendale
BB4 0GE
Tel: 0844 701 3980
Fax: 0844 701 3982

Mr

Calls to our 0845 numbers cost 2p per minute and

calls to our 0844 numbers cost 6p per minute, plus
your phone company's access Charge.

Grimsby

Calls may be recorded/monitored for quality

control and training purposes

Our Ref: 28628956

Date: 13 July 2016

Clients Ref: 5501

Dear Sir/Madam,
North East Lincolnshire Council C Tax - TCE

Thank you for letting us know about your concerns.

We are sorry to learn that you are not happy. We take the concerns you have raised very
seriously and will look into them carefully.
We will give your complaint our full attention and make sure that it is dealt with by someone with
the right knowledge and experience.
We will investigate your concerns and we may contact you to gather further information. We will
ensure that we can answer any queries and address your complaint in full. Once we have
completed our investigation we will provide you with a resolution.
Full details of our complaints procedure which details how we deal with complaints and the
steps we follow, can be found at http://www.Rossendales.com.
If you have any further queries, please do not hesitate to contact us on the number above.
Yours faithfully

Complaints Manager

Authorised and Regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority for accounts formed under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (amended 2006)
Registered in England No 1501584 VAT Reg No 354 7031 65
Rossendales limited registered office: Rutland House, 8th Floor, 148 Edmund Street, Birmingham, B3 2JR

Rossendales Limited
PO Box 324
Rossendale
BB4 0GE
Tel: 0844 701 3980
Fax: 01706 831 126

Private And Confidential

Mr
Grimsby

14 July 2016
Our Ref: 28628956 Client Ref: 5501

Dear Mr

Thank you for your email dated 12th July.

As you are aware we act upon the instructions of NE Lincs Council to recover monies owed for
unpaid Council Tax after a Liability Order was issued against you in a court of law. As I'm sure
you can appreciate when a matter has reached this stage our client requires us to execute the
Liability Order and recover a debt promptly and effectively.
We wrote to you on 11th May to advise of our involvement and offered a 14 day grace period in
which the matter could be resolved without incurring statutory fees. As we received no reply the
'Notice of Enforcement' that was served upon you on 25th May advise further of our lawful
involvement, the fee schedule, (set in law), that would now apply as recovery action is taken and
asked you to urgently contact us. With no contact nor payment from you we wrote to you again
twice.
I have noted from your email that you dispute your liability in respect of this matter. The Council
however does not regard the matter as in dispute and their instructions to us remain to collect the
full balance. Please contact us with your proposals to discharge this debt in order to prevent
further action.
Yours sincerely,
Paul Davies.
Complaints Team
Rossendales Limited

* Please be aware that calls to our 0845 numbers cost 2p per minute and calls to our 0844 numbers cost 6p per minute, plus your phone company's access Charge

Rossendales Limited - Registered in England & Wales - Registered No 1501584

Rutland House, 8th Floor, 148 Edmund Street, Birmingham, B3 2JR - VAT No 795 928 947 Rossendales limited is authorised
and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority for accounts formed under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (amended 2006)