IN THE FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL APPEAL: EA/2017/00XX

GENERAL REGULATORY CHAMBER

(INFORMATION RIGHTS)

BETWEEN:

Appellant
and

THE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER

Respondent

EXHIBIT 4
Bailiff fraud - 2013
(Humberside Polices Economic Crime Unit)
MAJOR CRIME UNIT
Grimsby
Economic Crime Section Hessle Police Station North East Lincolnshire
Hessle Road DN32
HULL
HU47BA

08/02/13

Dear Mr Wood

Re: Rossendales/North East Lincolnshire Council Fraud Allegations

As you may be aware from previous correspondence Ive been taking a keen interest in North East
Lincolnshire councils activities surrounding the collection and enforcement of council tax. This
includes dubious liability order applications through the Magistrates court and instructing its bailiff
contractor Rossendales to enforce the orders obtained.

I have reported a crime to Humberside Police's Economic Crime section and supplied evidence of
Rossendales several attempts to defraud me. However, the force would not, or were unable to
pursue the allegations and so Ive been seeking and collecting evidence through one means or
another in order to submit a report for the attention of the Serious Fraud Office.

One of these has been through Freedom of Information requests. However, It seems clear that
North East Lincolnshire council and the Information Commissioner are jointly obstructing the
release of potential evidence, therefore abetting Rossendale's crime. They have invented one
reason after another for withholding the information which is evident in the attachments. This is
obviously hindering the progress of the report to the SFO.

The council and ICO are aware of the reason Im requesting the information. The data relates to
the number of cases where certain enforcement fees were imposed covering around a five year
period. If on release, the results are as anticipated, this would provide evidence that the theft, or
attempted theft from residents subjected to these charges would be more than just a few isolated
incidents.

I have been fobbed-off by the council and Information commissioner for over a year in my attempts
to obtain the figures that the council have admitted they hold. The fees associated with the FOI
requests (Head H and attendance with a vehicle) are described in detail in the attachments.

If the Police suspect crimes are being committed (which it should now), what procedure must be
followed to oblige the council to release these figures, now the Information Commissioner is
refusing to cooperate in persuading the authority to comply?

The Information rights Tribunal have also been involved, but Im doubtful this will change the
position.

Would you please ensure this letter reaches the person most appropriate to deal with this matter.
Please find attached the first four of the following five documents listed:

1) FOI history.pdf

A record of correspondence between myself and North East Lincolnshire council. Please note the
FOI request dealing with attendance with a vehicle charge commences on the 28 June 2012
correspondence.

2) Fraudulent attend with vehicle.pdf

3) Fraudulent Goods redemption - Head H.pdf

4) fs_50443807.pdf

The Information Commissioners decision notice in regards the data concerning the Head H.

5) fs_50458338.pdf

This will be forwarded hopefully in the coming days and is the Information Commissioners decision
notice in regards the data concerning the attendance with a vehicle.

Yours sincerely

.
North East Lincolnshire council - Fraud

2.2 Fraudulent charges Attending to remove goods

An attendance with a vehicle charge is another enforcement fee which North East
Lincolnshire council has been complicit with Rossendales in unlawfully imposing on
debtors. The fee is headed C in schedule 5 of the Council Tax Regulations, and is
intended to cover out of pocket expenses for attending with a vehicle.

SCHEDULE 5 CHARGES CONNECTED WITH DISTRESS

Matter connected with distress Charge

C For one attendance with a vehicle with a view Reasonable costs and fees
to the removal of goods (where, following the incurred.
levy, goods are not removed):

As defined in the regulations, the attendance must be made with a view to the
removal of goods so an enforcement agent would need to arrive in, say, a removal
van for example, if bulky items such as furniture were listed on the Notice of Seizure,
or a breakdown recovery truck, if a vehicle had been levied.

Because the bailiff would need to be attending for the purpose of removing goods, the
fee would only be lawful following a valid levy, where under normal circumstances,
goods had been seized on a previous visit. Contracts between enforcement firms and
authorities would normally be breached if a bailiff attended with the view to levying
distress, and removing goods, both on the same visit.

If a levy is deemed necessary; the service level agreement (SLA) would normally
require that control of goods take the form of walking possession which allow levied
goods to remain with the debtor whilst under the authoritys control.

If conditions laid out in the SLA are followed, the recovery action open to the bailiff
firm following the levy would be normally:

a) to secure a payment plan, backed up by a signed walking possession

agreement (WPA), where goods remain in the authoritys control until such
time the debt is settled.

b) to advise, that in the coming days, they will return and remove levied items if
an offer of payment is not made or the debtor is unwilling to enter into a WPA.

Either may lead to a typical charge of around 150 imposed on the debtor for
attending with a vehicle with the view to removing goods. If a payment is missed or
late for example, a bailiff may exploit this by attending again and imposing the cost.
However, the fee is for attending to remove goods, and can be charged only once
where goods are not removed. It is unclear why a bailiff would arrange transport and
incur that expense if it was unlikely to be necessary.

1
Part 2 The Authoritys Enforcement Contractor

For a bailiff to attend, equipped with sufficient transport to effect a removal, it may be
plausible, if following a previous levy, the debtor either settled the debt or arranged a
payment plan on that attendance. However, an investigation into these charges would
reveal with almost certainty that the fee is charged more often than not where the
bailiff has neither intended to take goods nor attended with sufficient transport to incur
those costs.

The extent to which this fee is abused gets put into perspective by the data supplied
on Rossendales website. It states goods are actually removed by bailiffs in only 1% of
cases nationally1. Narrowing this down to North East Lincs councils 4,926 cases 2 in
2011-12, the figure relating to the number where goods were actually removed, was in
fact zero.

An attempt was made similar to that detailed in section 2.1 (Head H charges) to
obtain information surrounding the circumstances of the vehicle attendance charges;
whether levy and attendance fees were incurred on the same day/visit, the transport
used etc., etc. Like with the Head H data, the council changed its initial response from
not holding the information to stating it was held, only after the Commissioners
intervention. Similarly they withdrew their claim that the information was not held and
applied a refusal notice stating the number of hours needed to respond would exceed
the appropriate limit.

A decision notice relating to the complaint about the councils handling of the Freedom
of Information request has yet to be made, though its unlikely the decision will oblige
the council to release it.

In scenarios (a) and (b) above, the attendance serves:

i) to coerce payment,
ii) as a last chance to pay-up, or final notice
iii) to incur substantial costs for the debtor

The telltale signs that bailiffs add this charge where in fact there is no intention to
remove goods are given by the type of vehicles they attend the debtors home. They
are simply playing the system to make the maximum gain for their employers. It seems
this malpractice is also defended by the local authorities on whose behalf they collect.
However, malpractice would then become fraud, if an enforcement agent imposed this
fee whilst having insufficient transport to carry out the intended removal if it were
necessary.

It is assumed in these circumstances that there has been a prior levy and so is known
which goods are listed on the removal notice. However, it is common practice for an
enforcement agent to attend with the view to levying distress, and removing goods,
both on the same visit. This would require conditions set out in the service level
agreement between the authority and enforcement firm to allow this.

1
http://www.rossendales.com/rossendales/index.php/news/40/63/Rossendales-Fact-File
2
Number of cases referred to bailiffs to levy distress for NNDR and Council Tax in 2011-12, sourced from Chartered
Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA) Revenue Collection Statistics, provisional data

2
North East Lincolnshire council - Fraud

Even if contracts allowed it; if a bailiff wanted to "Levy & Remove Immediately", he
would on his first visit need to arrive with sufficient transport vans, tow-truck etc, to
remove goods he intended to levy on that visit. Goods will not have been identified, so
enforcement would be speculative. Therefore unless sufficient transport was available
for which the bailiff incurred costs, any charge made under header C would be
fraudulent, in spite of there being no removal.

The potential to exploit attendance fees (both levy and removal), would be why the
LGO 3 took an unusually critical view of a local authority in a 1997 report 4 . Its
investigation focussed on complaints into bailiffs charging the fee without first having
levied goods. The Department of the Environment 5, Secretary of the CBA 6 and Head of
Revenue at CIPFA 7 agreed unanimously that the charge should not have been made
unless distress had first been levied. The bailiff firms solicitor, after being consulted on
the matter, concluded that no charge for removal was due.

It is evident from the report that the council, after initially considering these
complaints, concluded that the fees were correct. Taking this view would in all
probability be standard policy, as accusations of unlawful fees are met as a matter of
course with assurances that they are correct and consequently the complaint not
upheld. The council had therefore supported its bailiff in unlawfully charging the fee,
something North East Lincolnshire council has also done and would expect most
authorities do.

It has been established that the enforcement agent would need genuinely to be
attending to remove goods and consequently have arrived in a vehicle suitable for the
safe transport of items listed on the Notice of Seizure. The charge imposed would need
to have been reasonably incurred, so if it was requested, a bailiff should be able to
provide evidence. Unless transport was hired exclusively for a single attendance, all
charges made in respect of other visits would need to be factored in to account for the
costs incurred to establish a reasonable fee imposed on each debtor.

Authorities contracting private bailiff firms have neglected to review enforcement fee
schedules when outsourcing the service. They have simply allowed bailiff firms to take
over the same fees and charges that councils are authorised to impose.

No provision in the fee structure was made that would allow these private firms to
make a profit an important consideration as a council, in contrast, provides a public
service. This is likely to be an important factor, contributing to much of the fraudulent
charging by private enforcement firms.

All fees and charges detailed in Schedule 5 of the Council Tax Regulations are the
council's in law, both those that are prescribed and those that are simply stated as
being "reasonable" in the legislation.

3
Local Government Ombudsman
4
LGO Report on an investigation into complaint nos 95A01890 & 95A04826 against London Borough of Ealing
5
Now Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG)
6
Certificated Bailiffs Association, now ESA (Enforcement Services Association)
7
Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy

3
Part 2 The Authoritys Enforcement Contractor

Part of the authority's contractual arrangements with the bailiff company will detail the
fact that the council will allow the bailiff firm to retain the enforcement fees
themselves. In fact external bailiff fees do not exist in the collection of council tax
debt; they are always the council's enforcement fees.

Bearing this in mind and assuming it was the council enforcing payment. The
associated costs 'reasonably incurred' in connection with attending with a vehicle
would be limited to those additional to what the council would incur in any event. In
other words, internal bailiffs would be salaried so could not attribute costs to man
hours while attending with a vehicle.

Private enforcement firms have overheads such as in the case of Rossendales, a

millionaire chairwoman's lifestyle. However, to create millionaires on the back of
struggling householders is not what the charges connected with distress was intended.
It should not be expected that householders meet the additional costs of sustaining
private companies especially the fraudulent element purely because it is convenient
for councils to have this arrangement.

Fraudulent gains, for which councils are responsible, could easily run into millions for
bailiff firms. By defending bailiff charges, council staff dealing with complaints are
abetting their contractors to thieve from the public.

Staff are required to be obstructive, lie and misinform residents about Rossendales'
malpractice. This is evident in the way staff reiterate generic one fits all solutions with
statements like regarding their charges, I have been assured by Rossendales that all
charges used are set down in statute or alternatively they are governed by National
Standards for Enforcement Agents.

Councils refute allegations of crime, merely on the grounds that their bailiffs are
contracted to conform to certain standards. However, a requirement to comply with
certain conditions and apply fees correctly is not a guarantee that they do.

Issues are fobbed-off without even having the most preliminary of investigations. This,
for the councils convenience and bailiff firms profit, paves the way for the extortion to
continue, making the council nothing more than a mafia type organisation, serving to
aid the theft of millions from the public.

Rossendales complaints team admit that the firm allows its bailiffs to defraud residents
with attendance fees. The council states that its fees are correctly charged and in
accordance with statute which means they are abetting Rossendales to defraud its
residents.

4
North East Lincolnshire council - Fraud

2.2.1 Councils formal complaints Attending to remove goods

A subject access request 8 (SAR) was sent after the council made no attempt to
address questionable and unitemised demands 9. This was forwarded to Rossendales
complaints department, as was a subsequent formal complaint made to the council.

The response to the complaint revealed that in addition to charges for phantom visits
which had been identified in the SAR, the levy which had also been identified, was
confirmed as a vehicle belonging someone else.

The bailiff fraudulently charged for visits that had not been made, incurred a charge
for levying an arbitrary vehicle and fraudulently imposed a fee for attending with a
vehicle.

Rossendales detailed these fees in its response to the SAR:

27 May 2009 Incorrect debt and all demands fraudulent

The money owed the council on December 2, 2008 was 141, not 225. The fees
itemised also omit a 60 charge added by the bailiff off the record, and the
fraudulently applied 24.50 Head H fee, added to the total in Rossendales earlier
correspondence of 13 May 2009.

The 110 charge for attending with a vehicle was made on the same day a charge of
25 had been made for levying a vehicle.

It has been established that if a bailiff wished to "Levy and Remove" on the same visit
and impose fees, he would need to arrive with sufficient transport - vans etc, to
remove the goods he anticipated distraining upon. It was identified through the
complaints process that a vehicle had been levied. Therefore, the bailiff was attending
with a view to removing a vehicle. To have charged the fee lawfully, he would have
needed to attend with a tow-truck. It is unlikely this would have happened as the same
employee, described as a van bailiff, re-attended after making the levy in a light duty
van, identified as a Peugeot Partner 10.

8
Written, signed request from an individual to see information held on them
9
North East Lincolnshire Council has used Rossendales for several years and they employ certified bailiffs who operate
within the law and recommended guide lines." (NELCs Debt recovery officer)
10
Peugeot Partner Combi HDi Escapade light duty van

5
Part 2 The Authoritys Enforcement Contractor

Rossendales senior complaints officer:

The bailiff attended your property on the 5th March 2009 and levied on a vehicle. I have
enclosed copy of the Notice of Distress for your information. A levy fee and van costs
were incurred in respect of this visit.....

.....At this stage the bailiff was attending with a view to obtaining payment in full or to
removing goods. The bailiff re-attended your property on the 17th March 2009 but could
gain no response and left a Final Notice.11

On the day the bailiff levied, he would have in all probability arrived in his regular
transport. Evidently then, he would have been attending only with a view to obtaining
payment, because the transport hed brought hadnt the capacity to remove goods.
The bailiff would have had no intention of removing goods on that visit and the firm
has made it clear that this is normal practice for their bailiffs. With NELC sending on
average 5,776 cases to bailiffs each year for council tax and buisness rates 12 ,
Rossendales, who act on behalf of 150 local authorities 13 will have defrauded millions
of pounds from debtors with this fee alone.

The formal complaint was referred back to the authority where NELC continued to
defend Rossendales.

The council categorically backed its contractors decision to fraudulently charge the
attendance fee.

Councils court enforcement manager:

5) Levy on a vehicle, Rossendale's have already stated in their letter to you dated 21st
July 2009, that when they attended your property on 5th March 2009 and levied on a
vehicle they left notification of this levy in an envelope marked for your attention under
the security door. They state that the vehicle would not have been removed until further
checks have been made with DVLA and undertaken a HPI check. Regarding their charges,
I have been assured by Rossendales that all charges used are set down in statute....... 14

These statements relate to a specific complaint, however it is clearly Rossendales

policy to defraud debtors with what it terms, an attendance fee 15, and the council has
openly defended its contractor, so is party to the fraud.

The council has stated under Rossendales advice that the vehicle would not have been
removed until ownership checks had been made. It is therefore Rossendales policy,
that after levying a vehicle but before its removal, an enquiry is made to DVLA to
confirm ownership. This raises the important point that even if the bailiff had brought

11
Reply from Rossendales to formal complaint, Ref: JP/2547/4704567 (21 July 2009)
12
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/6822/response/76185/attach/2/CRM766050.pdf (Cases sent to bailiffs,
page 5)
13
Lancashire Telegraph Credit crunch mixed blessings for Rawtenstall bailiffs, 9 April 2009
14
Reply from North East Lincolnshire council to formal complaint, Complaint ID: BSU2945 Stage 1 (19 August 2009)
15
Attendance with a vehicle with a view to the removal of goods (where, following the levy, goods are not removed)

6
North East Lincolnshire council - Fraud

along sufficient transportation to "Levy and Remove" on the same visit, charging for
this action would still be unlawful.

In these circumstances, a bailiff would not be attending with a view to removing goods
as hed be required to confirm ownership of the vehicle. This, according to DVLA,
would at the soonest, be the day after an enquiry was made. The Ministry of Justice is
aware this malpractice goes on, as detailed in a report which proposes an Enforcement
Fee Structure Review 16.

From report (Nature of alleged abuses):

Abuse can also occur when an attendance to remove goods is made when there is no
intention on the part of the Enforcement Officer to really remove goodsWe hear plenty
of stories of cases in the County Court and with other High Court Enforcement Officers
where goods are never removed. It is almost as if it has become too much trouble to
remove goods. (HCEOA Member)

The formal complaints process has revealed in this example that it is Rossendales
policy to impose the costs under heading C of the schedule of charges 17, when in fact,
there is no intention on the part of the bailiff to really remove goods. It is likely
thousands of residents will have been defrauded with the charge, and as a catalyst the
authority has boosted these with its policy to back them.

This case highlights the probability that other councils (there are around 150) who
contract recovery to Rossendales will be defrauding the public with attendance fees.

However, it is unlikely this crime will be limited to Rossendales and its clients. If
investigations were made into all local authorities outsourcing enforcement to private
bailiff firms, it is likely most if not all would unlawfully be imposing fees, with councils
fully defending their actions.

A measure of this can be gauged by various forums dedicated to bailiff issues 18 . A

number of private enforcement firms appear as regulars, with recurring issues raised
normally on the theme of overcharging or inappropriate fees.

From browsing members accounts, theres a sense that the respective councils are the
main cause of the nightmare situations they find themselves in. Those alleging to have
been fraudulently charged are in most cases left abandoned. By far the easier option is
for council staff to favour their bailiffs blanket assurance that charges are in
accordance with the law, over the victims claims of extortion.

Each case features a degree or even the full complement of instantly recognisable
scams which these firms have at their disposal. The scenarios are invariably carbon
copies, as are transcribed dialogues between either the bailiff or council personnel and

16
Enforcement Agents Fee Structure Review, by Alexander Dehayen for the Ministry of Justice, November 2009
17
Schedule 5 charges connected with distress Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992
18
Consumer Action Group Bailiffs and High Court Enforcement Officers; Legal Beagles Bailiff issues

7
Part 2 The Authoritys Enforcement Contractor

the victim. Responses appear rehearsed word for word, suggesting an identical policy
exists, dictating that all councils deny everything and admit nothing; one which
requires staff dealing with queries and complaints to be obstructive, lie and misinform
residents about its contractors malpractice.

To indiscriminately refute allegations of spurious bailiff fees, without first making

elementary enquiries, amounts to council staff abetting their contractors to thieve from
the public. The inevitable cost of follow-up complaints also raises concerns about the
extent to which officers at NELC are prepared to recklessly use council taxpaying
resident's funds for their own protection by defending, therefore abetting, their
enforcement contractor, Rossendales, in acts of fraud. The additional expenditure in
such circumstances could have been saved if on first being alerted to Rossendales'
fraud, they had acted responsibly, rather than continuing the charade, which was that
these crooks operate within the law.

8
North East Lincolnshire council - Fraud

PART TWO

2 The authoritys enforcement contractor

2.1 Fraudulent charges goods redemption

North East Lincolnshire council has been complicit with bailiffs Rossendales, in
unlawfully charging debtors enforcement fees for what the council believes is a bonus
payment for signing off the case. The fee is headed H and listed in schedule 5 of the
Council Tax Regulations 1 , and is to cover out of pocket expenses in relation to
advertising levied goods.

The fee can lawfully be imposed, only when levied goods have been physically
removed; however, Rossendales routinely add it to a debtors account which the
authority openly approves. In fact, these are the words of NELC: This fee is the final
charge to be taken after all Council Tax Arrears and other bailiff fees are paid in full

The fee was an amendment to schedule 5 of the Council Tax Regulations, and
introduced in a 1993 amendment 2, to compensate the bailiff firm for costs they incur
with respect to advertising when a debtor settles their council tax liability before any
sale of their goods takes place.

In a further change to the schedule, the fee was amended from reasonable costs to
either a fixed sum or actual costs incurred 3. Although the structure has not changed,
the fixed sum element underwent subsequent increases with amendments in 2003 4
and most recently 2006 5.

Introduction of the Header H fee and time-line of subsequent amendments

SCHEDULE 5 CHARGES CONNECTED WITH

DISTRESS

(H) Where no sale takes place by reason of Reasonable costs and fees incurred in
payment or tender in the Circumstances respect of advertising.
referred to in Regulation 45(4);

Brought into effect in 1993 Amendment to Schedule Five 6

1
The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 SI 1992/613
2
The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) (Amendment) (No.2) Regulations 1993 SI 1993/773
3
The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) (Amendment) Regulations 1998 SI 1998/295
4
The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) (Amendment) (No.2) (England) Regulations 2003 SI 2003/2211
5
The Council Tax and Non-Domestic Rating (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2006 SI 2006/3395
6
The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) (Amendment) (No.2) Regulations 1993 SCHEDULE

1
Part 2 The Authoritys Enforcement Contractor

(4) Where an authority has seized goods of the debtor in pursuance of the distress, but
before sale of these goods the appropriate amount (including charges arising up to the time
of the payment or tender) is paid or tendered to the authority, the authority shall accept the
amount, the sale shall not be proceeded with and the goods shall be made available for
collection by the debtor.

Regulation 45(4) 7

Charges connected with distress

8.(1) Schedule 5(1) is amended as follows.
(2) In column (2) of the Table to paragraph 1
(c) in relation to head H (prior payment etc.), for Reasonable costs to the end of the Table
there is substituted
Either
(i)20, or
(ii)the actual costs incurred, to a maximum of 5 per cent. of the amount in respect of which
the liability order was made,
whichever is the greater.
8
1998 Amendment

Charges connected with distress

4. In Schedule 5
(a) in column (2) of the Table to paragraph 1
(iii) in relation to head H (prior payment etc.), for 20.00 substitute 22.50

2003 amendment 9

Amendment of the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations

1992
5.(1) The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992(1) are amended
as follows.
(3) In Schedule 5 (charges connected with distress)
(a) in column (2) of the Table in paragraph 1
(v) in the row corresponding to head H(i) of column (1), for 22.50 substitute 24.50;

2006 amendment 10

7
The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 PART VI Enforcement, distress regulation 45(4)
8
The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) (Amendment) Regulations 1998 Charges connected with distress
9
The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) (Amendment) (No.2) (England) Regulations 2003 Charges
connected with distress

2
North East Lincolnshire council - Fraud

Current provision for Header H as per schedule 5 charges connected with distress

(H) Where no sale takes place by reason of For fees incurred in respect of advertising.
payment or tender in the Circumstances
referred to in Regulation 45(4); Either:
(i) 24.50, or
(ii) the actual costs incurred, to a maximum
of 5% of the amount in respect of which the
liability order was made.
whichever is the greater.

The council allows Rossendales to charge the 24.50 fee in all cases where goods have
been levied, regardless of whether advertising costs have been incurred or the goods
have been removed.

Ive attempted to obtain figures from the council relating to the number of North East
Lincolnshire residents who have incurred the Header H fee, as a result of the council or
its agents levying a council tax debt, where goods had not been physically removed.
The data requested covered a five year period, and made a distinction between the
number of residents incurring the fee, and those who actually paid it.

The Council stated that it did not hold the information and did not add the costs, or
record them on its system, in its January 2012 response.

The council maintained the lie for a further six months stating repeatedly that it did not
hold the information until in August, after the Information Commissioners intervention,
divulged that further investigations identified that the council did hold the information.

They therefore withdrew their claim that the information was not held and applied a
refusal notice under section 12 allowing them to withhold the data as the cost to
respond would exceed the appropriate limit.

The battle continues to prize this incriminating information from the authority with no
thanks to the Information Commissioner who let the council off the hook as is made
clear in its decision notice 11. This however, has been appealed against to the First-tier
Tribunal (Information Rights) and is currently being processed.

10
The Council Tax and Non-Domestic Rating (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2006 Amendment of the Council
Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992

11
http://www.ico.gov.uk/~/media/documents/decisionnotices/2012/fs_50443807.ashx

3
Part 2 The Authoritys Enforcement Contractor

2.1.1 Councils formal complaint Goods redemption

Extract of Councils response to formal complaint:

Our ref: NS/FIN

Your ref: 5501..........
02/11/09

Dear Mr .......... ,

th
Complaint ID BSU Stage 2 314 - 4 September 2009

..................................................

6. The adding of apparently fraudulent charges to your account.

I have at your request asked further questions regarding the costs that seemed to be
incorrect when looking at your account.

The 2 costs in question were the 60.00 added to your account at the levy stage and the
24.50 added at the end of the account. I shall explain these 2 costs separately.

After speaking to Rossendales regarding the 60.00 they are unable to identify why this
amount was added to your account by the Van Bailiff.

Rossednales state that this must have been an error by the Bailiff and that the amount
written on the Bailiff removal Letter was not in any way added to your account.

The 24.50 is due to the adding of a Schedule 5 Head H fee to the account. The letter
th
issued on the 30 March was done so upon the final debrief from the van bailiff, however,
the Head H fee had not been added at this point. This fee is the final charge to be taken
after all Council Tax Arrears and other bailiff fees are paid in full, however it is added to an
account prior to the final payment so that the Council Tax Payer is aware of the final balance
due.

I am willing to uphold part of this complaint as the 60.00 was an error made by the bailiff at
the time; however I am unable to uphold the complaint regarding the 24.50 as this is a cost
which the bailiff company is entitled to....

Finance Department, North East Lincolnshire Council, Civic Offices, Knoll Street, Cleethorpes. DN35 8LN.
Telephone (01472) 323767 Fax (01472) 323746

4
North East Lincolnshire council - Fraud

It hasnt, up to now, been possible to obtain figures for the number of residents who
have unlawfully been charged the fee. However, statistics published on Rossendales
website suggest, it would not be unreasonable to assume the figure could run into
hundreds of thousands throughout the country, if not millions.

Rossendales state on its website that where goods are actually removed by bailiffs, this
nationally only represents 1% of cases. 1.4 million council tax Liability Orders were
issued to bailiffs last year, so if all councils allowed their contracted bailiff firms to
routinely charge this fee when no goods have been removed, then potentially, a
maximum of 1.386 million could have been defrauded with this charge last year.

An LGO report from July 2012 (Blaby District Council) 12 supports the assertion that
bailiff firms are abusing the fee.

From report (item 48)

Head H fee
48. I note the bailiffs charged a redemption fee of 24.50 under Head H of Schedule 5 in
respect of one of the vehicles on the 2005 liability order. This fee was removed when the
Council established the car did not belong to Mrs Smith. I welcome this action. But the Head
H fee should not have been applied on the facts of this case: the goods were not made
available for collection by the debtor as they were never removed. This was
maladministration.

Another LGO report from November 2012 adds further weight 13

One particular area of dispute is the fee charged under Head H of the council tax costs
schedule, where goods are removed but not sold. Bailiffs often charge this when they take
walking possession but do not remove goods, calling it a redemption fee. The Ombudsmans
view is that bailiffs should not charge this fee when the debtor makes an arrangement and
no goods are actually taken.

12
LGO Report dated 10 July 2012 on an investigation into complaint no 11 007 684 against Blaby District Council
13
LGO Report dated 28 November 2012 Focus report on Councils use of bailiffs

5
 Page 1 of 1

From: "Wood, Michael 1202" <Michael.Wood@humberside.pnn.police.uk>

To: " "< @btopenworld.com>
Cc: "Gawthorpe, Helen 9619" <Helen.Gawthorpe@humberside.pnn.police.uk>
Sent: 20 February 2013 10:00
Subject: RE: EA/2013/0013; v Information Commissioner's Office (RESTRICTED - CRIME)

Mr ,

I have received your e-mail and the attachments. I will read through them shortly and get in touch with you
after I have done so.

Regards
Mike Wood
Detective Sergeant 1202 - Economic Crime Unit
Major Crime Unit - Tackling Serious & Organised Crime : Supporting Investigations

PO Box 515,Hull, HU9 9FT

 Phone: 01482 578942 (ext 6942)
Mobile: 07971 072712
 E-mail: Michael.Wood@humberside.pnn.police.uk

From: " "< @btopenworld.com>

To: "Wood, Michael 1202" <Michael.Wood@humberside.pnn.police.uk>
Cc: "Gawthorpe, Helen 9619" <Helen.Gawthorpe@humberside.pnn.police.uk>
Sent: 01 March 2013 14:11
Attach: 2013_02_13; ; EA.2012.0254.pdf; 0008 280213; ; Strike Out Decision
Notice.pdf
Subject: Re: EA/2013/0013; v Information Commissioner's Office (RESTRICTED - CRIME)

Dear Mr Wood

I mentioned in my letter dated 8 February 2013 that I had an appeal with the Tribunal (Information rights). I
was correct in anticipating that the outcome would be negative. Today I've been sent a decision to strike-out
my appeal (two different appeals).

After well over a year trying to obtain the evidence needed to prove particular aspects of my allegations there
are no further options I can think of to prize the required evidence out of the council. I'm therefore, as a
relatively powerless member of the public, open to suggestions now, as I've exhausted every avenue
available to me .

Yours sincerely

20/07/2017
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL
GENERAL REGULATORY CHAMBER
Information Rights
Tribunal Reference: EA/2012/0254
Appellant:
Respondent: The Information Commissioner
Judge: NJ Warren

DECISION NOTICE
1. The Information Commissioners Office (ICO) has applied to strike out Mr
s appeal on the ground that it has no reasonable prospect of success.

2. On 8 January 2012 Mr made a request under the Freedom of Information

Act (FOIA) to the North East Lincolnshire Council.

3. The first part of the request is no longer in issue. He asked about the Councils
policy in relation to a fee sometimes levied by bailiffs known as Header H. The
Council said they didnt have a policy. The ICO considers that it would have been
more helpful for the Council to have supplied a copy of the Statutory Schedule of
Charges which contains Header H. It seems a reasonable inference that Mr
was aware of the Schedule anyway.

4. The second part of the request covered a period of six years. Mr wanted to
know how many North East Lincolnshire Residents had incurred the Header H fee
where goods had not been physically removed. He also wanted to know how many
residents had paid the fee. At first the Council stated they did not have this
information. In the course of an ICO investigation the Council changed its stance.
The information received back from the bailiffs did include it but it was in a form
that meant that it would take about five minutes looking at each file to obtain it.
There were over 30,000 files and the total cost would be nearly 40,000. The
relevant cost limit under FOIA is 450.

5. In his appeal Mr does not contest these calculations.

6. First, he complains about the change in the Local Authoritys approach. Mr

is right to say that the Councils first decision was mistaken. This does not mean to
say that the argument can lead to his appeal succeeding. Although there has been
some uncertainty at times about the time at which various exemptions, to use a
broad term can be claimed, I do not accept that it can be a correct interpretation of
FOIA that a Public Authority which first considers that it does not hold
Decision Notice Continued Tribunal Reference Number: EA/2012/0254
Appellant:
Date of decision: 28 February 2013

information; then discovers that it does hold it in a form from which it is very
expensive to extract it; is nevertheless bound by law to then spend that money, in
this case 40,000 in consequence of its earlier misunderstanding.

7. Mr s second point is that the Councils bailiffs must hold this information
on their behalf. He points out correctly that the Councils contract with its bailiffs
requires them to assist and cooperate with the Council to enable it to comply with
its disclosure obligations under FOIA including supplying requested information
within 48 hours of being asked to do so by the Council. However, the costs limit is
a defining element of the Councils obligations under FOIA. It is a natural
presumption that the bailiffs hold the information in the form in which they
supplied it to the Council. It cannot be the effect of the contract that the costs limit
in FOIA does not apply simply because someone else holds the information on
behalf of the Public Authority.

8. Finally, in his reply to the ICO application Mr says that there are some
more cases known as return cases where money is paid to the bailiffs in full. He
says that these are not reported back to the Council and, in contradiction to his
earlier claim that the bailiffs hold the information on behalf of the Council, he says
that the Council are therefore wrong to say that they hold the information requested.
This convoluted argument cannot succeed. If there are more cases, then the costs
will be even higher.

9. All this means that the ICO is correct. The appeal cannot succeed. In my judgement
it should be struck out now under Rule 8(3)(c).

(Signed on the original) NJ Warren

Chamber President
Dated 28 February 2013
MAJOR CRIME UNIT
Grimsby
Economic Crime Section Hessle Police Station North East Lincolnshire
Hessle Road DN32
HULL
HU47BA

04/03/13

Dear Mr Wood

Re: Rossendales/North East Lincolnshire Council Fraud Allegations

Despite problems Im encountering obtaining information, there is, albeit in a limited way,
something of relevance which North East Lincolnshire council has confirmed.

In relation to my correspondence Fraudulent Goods redemption - Head H.pdf

From a sample 211 cases subject to a revised request for information, North East Lincolnshire
council has confirmed in 118 cases for which it held information, that in 4 of those cases the head
H fee was imposed.

The council also confirmed that in the relevant year, the number of cases referred to bailiffs where
goods had actually been removed, was zero.

A redemption fee as defined in law can only be imposed for making goods available for collection,
i.e., after being removed for the purpose of auctioning those items. The charge is to compensate
out of pocket advertising costs.

Adding to this, the remaining 93 cases for which NELC didnt hold information but agreed
Rossendales would supply, was never released. Despite querying why the council failed to comply
with the agreed terms, it would not explain why. Those unaccounted for relate to cases which are
paid in full to the bailiff, and presumably more likely to include a greater number of instances where
the Head H fee had been imposed. This probably explains the councils reluctance to supply the
data.

It has to be remembered that the 118 sample dealt with by NELC is less than 3% of the total 4,583
cases passed to bailiffs to enforce in 2011-12 for council tax and business rates.

Yours sincerely

.
 Humberside Police
Crime Management Branch
Economic Crime Unit
PO Box5l5
Hull
HU99FT

This matter is being dealt with by:

Communities, Criminals
Detective Sergeant Wood

12 March 2013

Mr ~ _ ....all
3'" ,.,~- -
Grimsby-----
DN32 nn I

Dear Mr
-----~_._---

Thank you for your recent submissions regarding Rossendales and North East Lincolnshire
Council. You have clearly gone to considerable lengths to compile this and raised some
interesting points but without the detailed information, that you have tried to obtain, being
made available I cannot take the matter any further.

On a cautionary note, I think that even if you had been able to gather the specific information
that you requested, it would have been very difficult to demonstrate that a criminal act had
been committed. For instance, we would need to show, beyond reasonable doubt, that the
Council and/or Rossendales had acted 'dishonestly.' The definition of dishonesty used for
criminal prosecutions can be found in R v Ghosh - it is quite an exacting test.

You obviously feel very strongly about these matters. However, as things stand, I think you
have a greater chance of success by pursuing this as a regulatory matter rather than a
criminal one.

Michael Wood
Detective Sergeant 1202
Economic Crime Unit
MAJOR CRIME UNIT

Economic Crime Section Hessle Police Station Grimsby

Hessle Road North East Lincolnshire
HULL
DN32
HU47BA

27/03/13

Dear Mr Wood

Re: Rossendales/North East Lincolnshire Council Fraud Allegations

I obtained information, see attached (ref South Ribble request - Jacobs Head H) relating to the
number of times the redemption fee has been imposed by South Ribble Borough Councils bailiff
contractor Jacobs, since 2009/10.

As you will see there have been 1,395 instances of this fee being imposed, meaning potentially
(24.50 minimum charge), 34,177 has been charged. You will notice too this corresponds to
goods being removed in none of these cases. The fraud, or attempt to defraud is pretty much
conclusive given that in almost 1,400 cases, a charge had been made for advertising (for sale) and
making goods available for return, which had never been taken.

Realistically this will only be the tip of the iceberg; there are more profitable fraudulently charged
attendance fees and the remaining hundreds of Local Authorities to account for. There is no doubt
in my mind the scale warrants Serious Fraud Office involvement. You have cited R v Ghosh and
the dishonesty test; if bailiff firms and local authorities dont know the law surrounding distress,
there must be other criminal charges to add on top of fraud when so many thousands are affected.

If these issues arent tackled I should imagine the deputy head of fraud at the Crown Prosecution
Service will probably live to regret saying this to the nation:

People who commit fraud, in any walk of life, should know that the scale and technicality of
a case is no barrier to bringing it to justice. At the heart of any complex fraud is a simple
notion of dishonesty which is something that we can all understand.

Clearly this evidence relates neither to North East Lincolnshire Council nor Rossendales, but the
fact it is likely all private bailiff firms contracted to councils and those local authorities abetting the
theft, the allegations are more serious. Im sending you this because you are already in the picture,
so to speak, with these issues. Considering the scale of the theft, my suggestions are that HMCTS,
Ministry of Justice and the Department of Communities and Local Government are all considered
for investigation and this be recommended to the SFO.

Yours sincerely

.
Date: 26 March 2013

AB
Your ref: FOI Request Our ref: MBF

Please ask for: Michael Fisher

Extension: 5578 Direct Dial Tel: 01772 625578
Fax: 01772 622287 email: revenues@southribble.gov.uk

Request-151740-faba6dbc@whatdotheyknow.com Civic Centre, West Paddock,

Leyland, Lancashire PR25 1DH
Tel: 01772 421491
Fax: 01772 622287
email: info@southribble.gov.uk

website: www.southribble.gov.uk

Dear Sir,

Re- FOI Request 1653, Recovery Action

Thank you for your correspondence of 1st March 2013 requesting the above details. We have supplied
the requested information in full
2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13

A Header H Fee 432 355 413 195

B (i) Referred to Bailiffs 1,496 1,913 1,685 2,048

(ii) Goods removed 0 0 0 0

If you are unhappy with the service you have received in relation to your request and wish to make a
complaint or request a review of our decision, you should write to me at the address above. If you are
not content with the outcome of any complaint, you may apply directly to the Information
Commissioner for a decision. Generally, the ICO cannot make a decision unless you have exhausted
the complaints procedure provided by South Ribble Borough Council

The Information Commissioner can be contacted at: The Information Commissioners Office, Wycliffe
House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire SK9 5AF.

Please do not hesitate to contact Mr Fisher if your have any further queries regarding this matter.

Yours Sincerely

Michael B Fisher
Revenues Services Manager
MAJOR CRIME UNIT
Grimsby
Economic Crime Section Hessle Police Station North East Lincolnshire
Hessle Road DN32
HULL
HU47BA

19/07/13

Dear Mr Wood

Re: Rossendales/North East Lincolnshire Council Fraud Allegations

Further to my 27 March 2013 correspondence, please find attached a recent report from the
Department of Communities and Local Government entitled Guidance to local councils on good
practice in the collection of Council Tax arrears.

I draw your attention to paragraph 5.8 which I think is acknowledgement by the Government that
the police should be taking allegations seriously where fraudulent practices are reported:

5.8 The Government consider that any fraudulent practices should be reported to the
police as a criminal offence under the Fraud Act and that Local Authorities should terminate
any contract with companies whose activities are proved fraudulent.

An update

The data relating to bailiff fees (Head H) which NELC has refused to release and been in dispute
for more than 18 months has finally been disclosed. No explanation has been given why the
estimated cost of 40k has no longer been a contributing factor for withholding the data.

Ive enquired with the council, Information Commissioner and Tribunal and it is becoming
increasingly clear that I will unlikely be told why the information has now been released.

The Information Commissioner has stated why they wont explain which amounts to there being
nothing in law obliging them to. The Tribunal regrets that there is no further action the Tribunal can
take given that a final decision has been reached my appeal was struck-out obviously on
erroneous grounds. The Council claimed further investigation was made as soon as it was
identified that other councils were able to supply the information. The reality is I had informed the
council months before that it was possible, but it maintained the data was not held. Im guessing
the council disclosed it because subsequently my evidence might have been sent to NELC
indirectly from the Tribunal or Information Commissioner.

The results are as I expected; the fee has been incurred by householders in hundreds of cases
where goods had not been removed, and as such been charged to hike up debt to financially
advantage the bailiff firm.
NELCs bailiff contractor, Rossendales Schedule 5 Head H fees data

Period Total number Total number Value of incurred Fees paid based
where fee where fee fees based on on statutory min.
incurred paid statutory min.

2007-08 387 186 9,481.50 4,557

2008-09 241 201 5,904.50 4,924.50

2009-10 218 216 5,341 5,292

2010-11 162 159 3,969 3895.50

2011-12 185 169 4,532.50 4,140.50

2012-13 191 133 4,679.50 3,258.50

2013 - date 34 6 833 147

Totals 1,418 1,070 34,741 26,215

It is almost certain that the number of times goods were removed in the above cases will be
insignificant and would expect if any to be in single figures if and when confirmed.

Over the period, and assuming goods had not been removed in any cases, the fee had been
charged 1,418 times where it could not possibly have been lawful and was actually paid in well
over a thousand instances by the person being pursued by bailiffs.

Schedule 5 Head C fees data Attending with a vehicle

The Head H figures for North East Lincolnshire are just the tip of the iceberg. The figures which I
hope to have shortly relating to attendance fees are likely to boost the fraudulently demanded 35k
substantially. It has been disclosed already that NELC has agreed set fees with Rossendales
(130) for attending with a vehicle with a view to removal of goods (where following the levy, goods
are not removed). This is inappropriate particularly because legislation states: reasonable costs
and fees incurred.

The council has also agreed set fees as a second element to what is the statutory attending with a
vehicle charge. This is described as waiting time for which there is no provision in law and solely
makes up a contractors hourly rate as it is over and above the 130 fee which itself includes an
hourly rate as the council describes:

For each half hour waiting time (not including the first hour which is covered within the
attendance fee): 32.50

The only information obtained so far is the total number of cases sent to Rossendales incurring the
attendance fee over a period covering 2009-10 to date. That figure is 2,803 which based on the
current 130, relates to a value of 364.4k. Clear cut cases where the fee would categorically not
be chargeable are currently being fought over and will hopefully be released. A handful of councils
have been able to provide this data. However, its likely all 2,803 of those incurring the fee will have
been overcharged in the way detailed in document ref, Fraudulent attend with vehicle.pdf, sent as
attachment in email 8 February 2013.

The following table contains data disclosed over roughly a four year period from three local
authorities. Incidentally the bailiff contractor in all three cases is Rossendales.

Schedule 5 Head C fees data Obtained for period 2009/10 - Date

Local Authority and Total No Fee Value of No fee Value of Fee where
bailiff contractor where where total fees incurred fees agreed for
fee agreed incurred on levy incurred on (Waiting
incurred visit levy visit time)

North Lincolnshire 863 130 112,190 383 49,790 70/hour

Rossendales

Lincoln City 1,188 130 154,440 554 72,020 unknown

Rossendales

Mid Sussex District 1,103 130 143,390 667 86,710 65/hour

Rossendales

Totals 3,154 410,020 1,604 208,520

The table tells us from aggregating data of all three councils that on average, 50% of the cases
charged the van attendance fee, incurred it in respect of the same visit where goods were levied
(also incurring a fee). This as detailed in the document (ref Fraudulent attend with vehicle), will
have been to make maximum gain for their employers.

From only three of more than 350 local authorities in England and Wales, the scale of the crime is
put in perspective with councils demanding 208.5k from alleged debtors (for which theyre not
lawfully entitled), over the short period in question.

Its worth noting that there may be a number of councils opting to take tighter control over their
contractors as indicated by South Gloucestershire Council. That authority, although charging the
attendance fee 401 times over the four years has stated that "No Van fee" is charged unless a levy
is already in place. If what they have stated is implemented then theyre playing by the book,
however, this goes against what has been disclosed in the data supplied by the three sample
authorities.

Additional Local Authorities supplying redemption (Head H) fees data

There have been a number of local authorities asked to supply Head H fees data, who on the
whole have been able to supply it without the obstruction experienced with NELC.

The table below details the findings. Where the council supplied a breakdown, the data is itemised
by bailiff company where more than one is contracted to the authority.
Local Authority and bailiff Total Value of Total No of fees Value of fees
contractor number incurred fees number of incurred in incurred in
where based on times certain certain breach
fee statutory goods breach of of law
incurred min. removed law

Fylde Borough 167 4,091.50 0 167 4,091.50

Rossendales

Ribble Valley Borough 76 1,862 4 72 1,764

Rossendales

Blaby District 8 196 3 5 122.5

Rossendales

South Ribble Borough 1,395 34,177.50 0 1,395 34,177.50

Jacobs

South Kesteven District 756 18,522 5 751 18,399.50

Jacobs (286) (7,007) (0) (286) (7,007)
Rossendales (381) (9,334.50) (0) (381) (9,334.50)
Bristow & Sutor (89) (2,180.50) (5) (84) (2,058)

Lancaster City 208 5,096 1 207 5,071.5

Equita *
Rossendales

Hyndburn Borough 164 4,018 0 164 4,018

Jacobs
Rossendales
Rundle & Co *

Breckland District 464 11,368 1 463 11,343.50

Rossendales

Colchester Borough 2,001 49,024.50 2 1,999 48,975.50

Jacobs 1,517 (37,166.50) (0) (1,517) (37,166.50)
Rossendales 484 (11,858) (2) (482) (11,809)

Mansfield District 1,570 38,465 4 1,566 38,367

Rossendales
Rundle & Co
Bristow & Sutor

Preston City 404 9,898 0 404 9,898

Rossendales

East Riding of Yorkshire 2,092 51,254 1 2,091 51,229.50

Newlyn
Rundle & Co *

Bassetlaw District 1,875 45,937.50 1 1,874 45,913

Jacobs (1,081) (26,484.50) (0) (1,081) (26,484.50)
Rossendales (172) (4,214) (1) (171) (4,189.50)
Bristow & Sutor (622) (15,239) (0) (622) (15,239)
 Stockton on Tees 4,109 100,670.50 10 4,099 100,425.50
Bristow & Sutor
Jacobs

Hastings Borough 238 5,831 0 238 5,831

Rossendales

Scarborough Borough 2,951 72,299.50 0 2,951 72,299.50

Bristow & Sutor
Dukes
Jacobs
Newlyn
Rossendales

Bradford City 1,341 32,854.50 0 1,341 32,854.50

Jacobs
Phoenix

Gedling Borough 1,558 38,171 19 1,539 37,705.50

Bristow & Sutor
Dukes
Rossendales

Wrexham 2,994 73,353 9 2,985 73,132.50

Jacobs (1,552) (38,024) (2) (1,550) (37,975)
Rossendales (168) (4,116) (0) (168) (4,116)
Excel (1,274) (31,213) (7) (1,267) (31,041.50)

Cheshire West & Chester 3,547 86,901.50 24 3,523 86,313.50

Bristow & Sutor
Dukes
Jacobs

South Gloucestershire 942 23,079 7 935 22,907.50

Bristow & Sutor (942)
Rundle & Co (0)

Totals 28,860 707,070 91 28,769 704,840.50

* It has been stated Rundle & Co and Equita do not apply the Head H fee (see following)

The above, for which the 0.7 million has been incurred in certain breach of law, represents only
around 6% of local authorities in England and Wales. It would therefore not be unreasonable to
estimate a figure of 11.75 million if all councils had submitted redemption fee data.

Results are pretty consistent. The majority of bailiff firms see the redemption fee as a bonus
whenever levying and most councils raise no objection. However, the research has discovered
some exceptions, i.e., an odd council has decided, as policy, not to charge the fee as have one
or two bailiff firms.
Lincoln City Council has an agreement with its bailiff contractor, Rossendales, not to apply the
Head H fee. It joins Brighton & Hove along with Thurrock Borough Council to make up the three
authorities discovered that do not allow its bailiff contractor to charge this fee.

In a slightly different scenario, Milton Keynes do apply the fee, but in accordance with the law.

Where an authority uses more than one bailiff firm it is worth noting those which have stated one
but not the other of its contractors charge the fee.

Havant Borough Council use Equita and Ross and Roberts but have stated where Equita do not
levy costs under schedule 5 (H), Ross & Roberts do, but are unable to split these out from other
costs and fees for disclosure.

South Gloucestershire Council use two different bailiff firms for council tax but state Rundle & Co
do not charge header H on any case, whilst its other contractor, Bristow & Sutor, quite liberally do.

The significance of this being the negligence on the part of the council if it allows one contractor to
charge whilst at the same time does not question why its other bailiff firm has decided not to risk
legal challenge.

Northampton Borough Council were found to be in a class of its own having Rundles & Co, Bristow
& Sutor, Equita and Rossendales enforcing alleged council tax debt, with allegedly only
Rossendales applying the fee. In the cases of Equita and Rundles & Co, the statement concurs
with what other councils have said, however, to be convinced that Bristow & Sutor with referrals
totalling 10,296 over the period in question to have not incurred a redemption fee is another
matter.

To conclude, Swindon Borough Council, who contract Ross and Roberts, confirmed that they were
unable to provide the data as the information could not be extracted from their computer records
and further confirmed they were unable to provide the data for any of their Local Authority
customers.

Yours sincerely

.
MAJOR CRIME UNIT

Economic Crime Section Hessle Police Station Grimsby

Hessle Road North East Lincolnshire
HULL
DN32
HU47BA

24/07/13

Dear Mr Wood

Re: Rossendales/North East Lincolnshire Council Fraud Allegations

Further to my 19 July 2013 correspondence, please find the data release by North East
Lincolnshire Council in regards vehicle attendance fees. As I expected, these have boosted the
fraudulently demanded 35k highlighted for redemption charges significantly by around 0.29
million making the total at least 0.325 million for the two categories over the period.

NELCs bailiff contractor, Rossendales Schedule 5 Head C fees data

Period Total number Value of total No fee incurred Value of fees

where fee fees incurred on levy visit incurred on
incurred levy visit

2007-08 890 115,700 274 35,620

2008-09 920 119,600 568 73,840

2009-10 943 122,590 514 66,820

2010-11 843 109,590 425 55,250

2011-12 611 79,430 260 33,800

2012-13 436 56,680 191 24,830

Totals 4,643 603,590 2,232 290,160

Although the figure stated is around 0.29, this corresponds with that for which the fraudulently
demanded sum is indisputable. However, if investigated I have little doubt that much of the 0.6
million accounting for the total incurred would also breach what the law allows.

Yours sincerely

.
 Page 1 of 1

From: " "< @btopenworld.com>

To: "Wood, Michael 1202" <Michael.Wood@humberside.pnn.police.uk>
Sent: 07 August 2013 17:36
Attach: Guidance_on_enforcement_of_CT_arrears - Amended.pdf
Subject: North East Lincolnshire council / Rossendales

Dear Mr Wood

Will you please confirm receipt of the email sent with attachments on 19 July 2013 and similar on 1 March
2013.

I've attached the Communities and Local Government guidance I sent previously. This is an amended copy.

Any update would be appreciated.

Yours sincerely

From: " "< @btopenworld.com>

To: "Wood, Michael 1202" <Michael.Wood@humberside.pnn.police.uk>
Sent: 12 August 2013 12:10
Attach: Guidance_on_enforcement_of_CT_arrears - Amended.pdf
Subject: Fw: North East Lincolnshire council / Rossendales

Dear Mr Wood

I would appreciate some response, even if it's to say Humberside Police will not be acting on the evidence
supplied.

It would be preferable knowing sooner than later if the force is going to turn a blind eye to these issues once
more.

You will appreciate, if this is swept under the carpet again, I will be pursuing answers for why it is that the
force is allowed to decide who the law applies to and who it doesn't. I won't this time be entering the charade
of the Discipline and Complaints section, Police and Crime Commissioner nor the IPCC, these issues will be
raised in Parliament.

Yours sincerely

20/07/2017
 Page 1 of 1

From: "Wood, Michael 1202" <Michael.Wood@humberside.pnn.police.uk>

To: " "< @btopenworld.com>
Sent: 13 August 2013 10:23
Subject: RE: North East Lincolnshire council / Rossendales (RESTRICTED - MANAGEMENT)

Mr ,

Yes, I have the papers that you have submitted and I will consider them shortly.

Regards
Mike Wood
Detective Sergeant 1202 - Economic Crime Unit
Major Crime Unit - Tackling Serious & Organised Crime : Supporting Investigations

PO Box 515,Hull, HU9 9FT

 Phone: 01482 578942 (ext 6942)
Mobile: 07971 072712
 E-mail: Michael.Wood@humberside.pnn.police.uk

From: " "< @btopenworld.com>

To: "Wood, Michael 1202" <Michael.Wood@humberside.pnn.police.uk>
Sent: 05 November 2013 15:46
Subject: Fw: North East Lincolnshire council / Rossendales

Dear Mr Wood

I am contacting you today in the hope that previous unsuccessful attempts have been as a consequence of
your overlooking the matter.

As I put in an email on 12 August, 2013, I will be taking my concerns about Humberside Police further and
would appreciate updating me with your progress, or informing me, as is more likely the case, that you will not
be and have never intended to investigate the allegations.

I will take no response as your having no regard for the expense involved, both to myself and more generally
the taxpayer of having to take my concerns further.

Your sincerely

20/07/2017
 Page 1 of 1

From: "Wood, Michael 1202" <Michael.Wood@humberside.pnn.police.uk>

To: " "< @btopenworld.com>
Sent: 05 November 2013 16:41
Subject: RE: North East Lincolnshire council / Rossendales (RESTRICTED - CRIME)

Mr ,

I have read and understood the submissions that you have made to Humberside Police. As I explained in my
e-mail of 8 October 2013 I am making some further enquiries and I will get back to you shortly.

Regards
Mike Wood
Detective Sergeant 1202 - Economic Crime Unit
Major Crime Unit - Tackling Serious & Organised Crime : Supporting Investigations

PO Box 515,Hull, HU9 9FT

 Phone: 01482 578942 (ext 6942)
Mobile: 07971 072712
 E-mail: Michael.Wood@humberside.pnn.police.uk

From: "Wood, Michael 1202" <Michael.Wood@humberside.pnn.police.uk>

To: " "< @btopenworld.com>
Sent: 09 November 2013 13:01
Subject: RE: North East Lincolnshire council / Rossendales (RESTRICTED - MANAGEMENT)

Mr ,

I have considered your submission regarding allegations of criminal conspiracy between North East
Lincolnshire Council and Rossendales Bailiffs.

To prove that a fraud offence has taken place, we need to demonstrate, beyond reasonable doubt, that a
dishonest act has occurred. The definition of dishonesty used in criminal prosecutions has been laid out as
per the case of R v Ghosh. I cannot see that your allegation meets those requirements.

With regard to the Schedule 5 charges connected with distress - it appears that the bailiffs do not have to
physically remove the goods (Evans v South Ribble Borough Council 1992.)

I do not take the view that NELC are co-conspirators. Should they report any criminal wrongdoing by bailiffs
we will consider the case on its merits.

Before undertaking a Fraud investigation, the Police must have good grounds to believe that a criminal
offence has been committed (HO Circular 47/2004). I do not consider that to be the case in this instance.

For these reasons, Humberside Police will not be pursuing an investigation into this matter.

My position is that this is more of a question of interpretation of the regulations as set out in the Statutory
Instruments that cover Council Tax Administration and Enforcement, and that your dispute should be referred
to the appropriate regulatory body.

Regards
Mike Wood
Detective Sergeant 1202 - Economic Crime Unit
Major Crime Unit - Tackling Serious & Organised Crime : Supporting Investigations

20/07/2017
 Page 1 of 1

From: " "< @btopenworld.com>

To: "Wood, Michael 1202" <Michael.Wood@humberside.pnn.police.uk>
Sent: 09 November 2013 13:49
Subject: Re: North East Lincolnshire council / Rossendales (RESTRICTED - MANAGEMENT)

Thank you for your response.

You have cited case law (Evans v South Ribble Borough Council 1992.) in support of your decision no to
investigate, presumably in regards the head H fee.

In what way, as you quote: "it appears that the bailiffs do not have to physically remove the goods" would this
support any decision not to investigate? I assume you have the relevant part of the judgment that influenced
your decision. May I ask if your point is that goods do not physically have to be removed for the goods to be
"seized"? If so that is a different issue to imposing head H charges where goods have not physically been
removed.

From: "Wood, Michael 1202" <Michael.Wood@humberside.pnn.police.uk>

To: " "< @btopenworld.com>
Cc: "Calvert, Christine 1487" <Christine.Calvert@humberside.pnn.police.uk>
Sent: 11 November 2013 12:38
Subject: RE: North East Lincolnshire council / Rossendales (RESTRICTED - MANAGEMENT)

Mr ,

The main factors in arriving at the decision not to investigate were the lack of a dishonest act, and not having
sufficiently good grounds to believe that a criminal offence has been committed.

I mentioned that bailiffs do not have to physically remove goods to be entitled to charge the 24.50 (Evans v
South Ribble Borough Council 1992) because you have stated in your submission 'The fee can lawfully be
imposed, only when levied goods have been physically removed.' I wanted to point out the difference to you.
My understanding is that the fee can be legitimately charged even when goods have not been physically
removed.

Regards
Mike Wood
Detective Sergeant 1202 - Economic Crime Unit
Major Crime Unit - Tackling Serious & Organised Crime : Supporting Investigations

PO Box 515,Hull, HU9 9FT

 Phone: 01482 578942 (ext 6942)
Mobile: 07971 072712
 E-mail: Michael.Wood@humberside.pnn.police.uk

20/07/2017