Here's a shock for you! According to the BBC, the CAB says that "Councils allow bailiff aggression", says Citizens Advice. So underwhelmed by this "news", I almost passed out. But of course we only get half the story from our third rate media. It's not just the councils who allow it. I now have it in writing from "Investigator" (using the term loosely) Peter Miller, of Avon and Somerset Plod, stating that they have no intention of of investigating on the basis that the court granted the council a liability order, and so as far as the plod are concerned, bailiffs are no longer bound by the law. (and they wonder why I have ZERO intention of paying my council tax any time soon!)
I will publish the letter as soon as I have access to a scanner. The reason I did not publish sooner was because the content of it was of such blood-boiling, lazy, illiterate, bovine stupidity that I've had to detach myself from the whole thing for a short while, in order to curve my Anders Breivik instincts if anything else. If these people were massacred in a hail of bullets, I would not lose any sleep and might even permit myself a little smile. But the arrival of this illiterate scrawl was no coincidence. One of my readers brought my attention to this which says roughly the same thing. One doesn't need a tinfoil hat to suspect foul play here.
Peter Miller says I can "pursue the matter civilly" (sic). However, my dear Mr Miller, it is not a civil matter. Fraud is a criminal matter, and I shall be anything BUT civil when I come for them, and you. And when I done with them in January, I will be making a formal complaint and will move for a mark of professional incompetence to be put on your record. At the very least you should be stripped of your title of "investigator" since you have done no such thing. But I suppose this is going to happen when real plod delegate their work to the tea boy. I think DI Stainer should also answer for shirking her police duties.
With respect to this years council tax bill, I have had the obligatory spam "Notice of intended action" from Rundles, though in the snail mail rather than a visit. If it wasn't evidence, it would go in the bin. They state "the above amount must be paid in full" without actually bothering to write on the amount owed. So Rundles haven't changed their practices very much, if at all. Though there is still no sign of them this year so I expect they are thinking twice about a visit to MY door. And that's probably a good idea. This year I know my rights. And if they think they can get away with what they tried on last year, I will re-educate them in the most vociferous manner. I have a legal precedent that shows physical intervention to prevent a bailiff unlawfully clamping a vehicle is not assault. Though I wasn't afraid of a criminal record last year and I am even less so this year. Bring it.
On a final note, I would like to thank all my readers this year whose support and encouragement has really made the difference, without which I might have thrown in the towel. I will fight these bastards. And I will go on fighting them. A very merry Christmas to you and yours.
