Tuesday, 6 August 2013

"No further emails will be responded to"

Just the other day I received a letter in the post from Rundles.  It was their standard "Notice of intended proceedings."  As it was in relation to the liability order from last year, I asked the council for clarification.
Dear Mr North,

Thank you for your e-mail dated 31st July 2013.

Any ongoing dispute with the bailiffs is with yourself and them; however I have contacted Rundles and checked the remaining balance that is owed is £280.50 which is bailiff costs that were incurred when the debt was passed to them for collection. Please make payment to them to settle the outstanding balance or if you do not wish to contact Rundles then you can make payment to us and we can then advise Rundles accordingly.


Mr Paul Mooney
Senior Recovery Officer
Bailiffs cannot levy for fees (especially unlawful fees), and if they do, they are committing an offence.  They have no court authority to levy for fees, but this does not concern SGC.  They are happy for their contractors to harass and to break the law.  I warned them that failure to call them off would result in court action against SGC.  Here is their reply...

Dear Mr North

I would like to confirm that your Complaint was handled correctly and the outcome was, it not being upheld, and you were found liable.

The letter sent to you dated 27th February 2013, advises you of this and it also states on the final paragraph that if you were still dis satified with the outcome, then you could within 20 days, request to go to stage 2 of the Councils Complaint Procedure, stating the reason why you are dis satisfied and also advising of a resolution.

This you did not do.

No further emails will be responded to, they will however be noted on your account.

Please make arrangements to pay the debt outstanding.

I trust this clarifies the situation.
This overlooks the fact they were sent a long and detailed email asking for clarification for the exact lawful authority by which they clamped my car - and evidence of the alleged first visits.   They did not reply.  Quelle surprise!  But SGC are satisfied.  Their idea of an investigation is to forward a copy of my complaint to the bailiffs and allow them to investigate themselves, wash their hands of it - and to take their word for it that visits were made when there is no evidence of them having done so on the alleged dates.

SGC's recovery department have been deliberately obstructive from the beginning.  But I am neither surprised nor troubled by this.  As far as I'm concerned they're just digging themselves deeper into the hole.  I now have it in writing that they will no longer respond to communication regarding this case.  The message is loud and clear.  Now they have their money, they are not interested in serving the public - but now they consider this matter resolved, that can only mean any authority to collect that the bailiffs once had has now expired.  They have now made themselves liable for any further criminal activity by Rundles.  This is going to cost them a lot of money should Rundles continue their action.


  1. Mr Paul Mooney Senior Recovery Officer SGC should be reminded that he is a 'public office holder' and it is an offence at common law to fail to act, especially to a reported fraud. Its called misconduct in public office and it carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.


  2. This is SGC's stubbornness to admit their bailiff contractor uses unlawful enforcement methods and a perfect example of how councils prefer to determine complaints or allegations of crime as unfounded.

    It seems obvious this is about performance targets and preserving reputation. Devious Councils do whatever it takes to achieve that by keeping upheld complaints to a minimum.

    All councils are required to submit details each year to the LGO relating to the number of formal complaints they receive, the complaints are categorised and split into the number unfounded/upheld etc. The number of complaints upheld determines whether or not the respective councils require investigating by the LGO to identify failings in the running of the authority. The intransigence then, which we all experience when dealing with the council, really functions to save the hide of the over-paid heads of departments and executives. A kick in the teeth really when it's at the expense of those paying their wages and into their gold plated pensions.

    Another reason for their scummy behaviour, especially in the case of bailiff malpractice, is the pressure on the head of department to submit a form 5 complaint about the bailiff to the certificating court. This would hardly cement working relations between the enforcement firm and council, so it's easier just to lie to and fob-off the victim than do what's right.

    The thing is, even if the LGO do get involved they'd never put together a unbiased and truthful report like the (i)LGO did in
    "this case".

  3. May I suggest when you write to SGC that you copy in i.e. cc, the Local Government Association (LGA) For no other reason as to implicate this EU backed, unelected, ill-gotten organisation too.