Sunday, 23 June 2013

What do they know?

There is a website known as "what do they know?" in relation to Freedom of Information requests, whereby we plebs get to question what our masters know, though it seems we are not permitted to see what WE collectively know.  Today I was directed to this page, which suggests one Arnold Layne has had a similar experience to my own.  I felt compelled to add a comment some hours ago, but it has since been deleted, on a Sunday at 5pm no less!

Hi Pete,

I have reviewed an annotation which you had made on a request which had been reported to us by another user.  The annotation was on the 'South Gloucestershire Council's Lying Policy' ( and I have removed it in line with our annotations moderation policy (

If you would like to discuss this decision then please do get in touch.

Kind Regards,

Alistair - volunteer
Not only is their moderation policy link dead, I do have to wonder, what sort of depraved sociopath actually reported my annotation.  Someone senior at SGC I expect.  

For those of you who missed it, here's what I wrote... 

Arnold Layne's experiences are entirely in line with my own from South Gloucestershire Council. Not only did they refuse to investigate or acknowledge the fraud by Rundles, they dismissed my complaint and passed it directly to bailiffs, which in my view was a breach of process and confidentiality.

Recovery Officer Dorothy Hooper repeatedly upheld the fraudulent fees claimed by Rundles and denied any fraud had taken place (without even investigating), but later, after I cut off a wheel clamp belonging to Rundles, Rundles say in their police statement that I was not present at the time of their first two visits (which is true) - and thus is not chargeable by law. This is known as a "phantom visit" and is a criminal offence under section 2 of the Fraud Act.

Councils are supposed to terminate their contracts with fraudsters and refer them to the police, but each time they conspired to uphold the fraud, preferring to disregard the articles of law I furnished them with.

I sent copies of the LGO rulings in such matters to the council, whereby bailiffs cannot charge attendance fees if no levy has been made. They summarily dismissed my complaint, even when Rundles had clamped my car AFTER the debt (minus bailiff fees) was paid directly to the council. Rundles then continued to attempt levies for fees alone, at one point reporting my car to the police as stolen, which is an abuse of police process. South Gloucestershire Council simply shrugged off this complaint, as did the police, who claim that bailiff fraud is a civil matter.

However, the DCLG guidance states:

5.7 Public concern has been raised about the practice of some bailiffs undertaking ‘phantom visits’ – charging fees for action when no action was actually taken.

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.

However, South Gloucestershire Council recovery officers believe they are the whole of the law and that their word is final, which makes them complicit in what appears to be a mass campaign of fraud by Rundle & Co. South Gloucestershire Council deny any profit sharing agreement with Rundles, so I am inclined to believe this is simply gross negligence rather than corruption, until I see evidence to the contrary.

Consequently, I am seeking the sacking of Dorothy Hooper and her supervisor for gross misconduct and I will be suing the council for damages.


  1. Mine was not so friendly.....


    Your request at:

    has been drawn to our attention.

    Our site is only for making FOI requests; it is not for posting other material such as allegations, online. In future please restrict use of our site to making FOI requests. FOI requests just need to concisely described the information you are seeking.

    Often adding extraneous information, such as allegations, can create problems for both you, and us - it can make it harder for the public body to realise correspondence does contain a FOI request, and it can contribute to requests being deemed vexatious.


    Richard - volunteer

  2. These moderators are just a Maginot Line. You just go around them.