Kicking back at bailiffs.

The Guardian is running a half decent report this week on the guidelines issued by the DCLG.  There's not much to pick fault with, either in the guidelines or the Guardian report, to which the councils will pay no attention.  I offer an extract for analysis.

Pickles said: "It is unacceptable for councils to employ burly bailiffs with heavy-handed tactics like kicking down doors, making phantom visits or charging excessive fees – it is unfair and damages a council's standing in the community.

Bailiff behaviour in this fashion is a given.  It's what bailiffs do.  That is why this blog is named the way it it, not "Rundles are lying crooks".  It seems somewhat redundant to make that assertion.  That's what they do.  If Rundles are confident that I am being in any way libellous, they are welcome to sue me and I shall see them in court.

What really "damages a council's standing in the community" is the fact that councils not only refuse to investigate their own contractors, it it is the fact they wilfully support the criminal actions of their contractors without investigation of complaints.

In so doing they move from a position of being benevolent benefactors to the needy to a position of being greedy cash-grabbing corporate monopolies who abuse their 'market position' to extort as much money as they can, for nefarious and dishonest purposes, with little or no accountability to the public.

This in turn creates what Baroness Hollis calls a "culture of non-compliance".  And rightly so.  If we are to pay council tax for them to squander at will without consequence for failure, and will wilfully allow their contractors to break the law in pursuit of their ill-gotten gains, then there is little or no option but for the decent law abiding citizen to refuse to comply.  That is, in part, why this blog exists.  If the state has taken it upon itself to break the law and criminalise the poor, then "non-compliance" is not only an option and a consequence, it is also a moral and civic duty.

This isn't over.

Some readers will be aware that the criminal damage trial regarding the clamping was last week.  I was found guilty.  I had moved for an adjournment on the basis that, as the police were (supposedly) investigating Rundles bailiffs, the outcome may prejudice that investigation.  I then received a letter from the CPS agreeing to an adjournment and even the CPS barrister in court had no objections in light of this matter.  This was of no concern to the magistrates, who then proceeded to press ahead with the trial, even thought I was without representation and my case notes were with my legal adviser.

Their view was that I should have been prepared for the possibility of a trial and spent the £1000 on representation just on the off chance, even though there was every reasonable expectation of an adjournment.  Evidently, expediency takes precedence over justice. 

The verdict was somewhat non-committal.  It was the view of the magistrates that as I had not contacted the police or the council at the time of clamping (as if there was any point in that) that my actions were not reasonable, which has no bearing on the fraud issue whatsoever.

Consequently, a rather rude plod informed me today (without letting me speak) that they have decided to drop their investigation of Rundles on the basis that I was found guilty of criminal damage. It is not for the magistrates to pass judgement on the matter of fraud (nor did they do so), only as to whether my actions were reasonable in light of the circumstances.  So the police have basically sat on their arses and awaited this verdict and summarily found Rundles innocent without investigation, charge or trial, even though Rundles themselves have admitted in court that they have no record of what they attempted to charge on first visit, no copies of the letters they posted through my door - and have yet to supply any evidence whatsoever that the visits had taken place at all.  Nor have the police contacted me at any point to clarify why I suspect a fraud and what my grounds for complaint are.  Had the police done their job (as if), there is a good chance I would not even have faced a trial.

I'm sure the plod, Rundles and the Council are having a good laugh about this, but in light of this, the police have strengthened my appeal grounds and now I will move for a full retrial.  This isn't over, not by a long shot, and when I win, I will make it my sole mission to bring all parties concerned to account.  My line of defence at trial was flawed, but having done the dress-rehearsal with a bunch of brain dead magistrates, and now having a new ace up my sleeve, along with proper representation, were I James Cohen, I would be concerned.  The police, the council and the courts have made a pigs ear of this from the very start.  It is going to cost them.

Quelle Surprise!

Well, well, well!!  Look who's in the news!  It's our fraudster friends, Rundle & Co. Bailiffs.

"When the bailiff, employed by Rundles – which collects late payments on behalf of the council – arrived at the 38-year-old's home in Hermits Road, Three Bridges, she thought he was there to discuss the plan.  But when she let him inside he presented her with a £950 bill, which included a £500 late payment charge.  Mrs Mustafaj told him she didn't have that much on her so would have to go to the bank.  She claims the bailiff told her this would add £110 to the bill. Mrs Mustafaj, who runs Cafe Xpress Wash in Gales Place, reluctantly agreed to pay up."

There is absolutely no basis in law for these charges whatsoever.  Not legally, not morally.  A serious fraud has been committed and Mrs Mustafaj, the victim, is evidently under the impression that Rundles have lawful authority to levy these fees.  They do not.  It is depressing that with all the wealth of information online that people still fall for this grotesque scam.  But the behaviour of the local council is equally repugnant, and is fairly consistent with my experience of South Gloucestershire Council, who are also aiding and abetting a serious fraud epidemic.

"Defending the bailiff, a council spokesman said: "Mrs Mustafaj appealed against the council's decision [not to give her a council tax discount]. It was reconsidered but we upheld our previous decision.  On April 18 Mrs Mustafaj told us she wished to take her claim to tribunal, which we are preparing for. The bailiff's actions and fees were appropriate."

This is absolutely classic council behaviour. No attempt to investigate the complaint, or to establish the lawfulness of the fees, only a justification of the decision to use bailiffs, which is wholly irrelevant. All we get is the casual and indifferent corporate-speak lies from them and "Nobody from Rundles was available for comment." Shocked!! Shocked I tell you!

Our councils are knowingly assisting a bandit organisation that wilfully acts outside the law. They must be stopped. And they will be. Of that, I promise.  I am not working alone on this.  An individual by the name of Arnold Layne deserves some special credit for the work he has done with FOI requests and his other research, and if you look in the comments of the linked article, you will see that there are other ordinary citizens, just like you, who have cottoned on to these grubby little fiefdoms where the police, the councils, the courts and the bailiffs close ranks in mutual defence and in defiance of the law.  We are building a body of evidence between us that this corruption is endemic to most, if not all, councils in the UK.

This is quite obviously a deliberate conspiracy to defraud, obfuscate and evade, and while the authorities have been getting away with this for years, now that we are seeing queues round the block of people summonsed for council tax, the days of this dirty little stitch-up are numbered.  Someone will have to answer, and if they think they can do this to us without there being a price to pay, then they can think again.  These people are predators who prey on the gullible, the weak and the poor.  But we will spread the word and we will teach people to stand up for their rights - and then SGC and your cronies, we will turn our attention on you.

Arrogant, rude, lazy and indifferent.

While the greedy-guts fraudsters at SGC are the primary offenders in this whole debacle, the police have not escaped my attention either, as you probably noticed.  What prompts this post is the remarks made today by policing minister Damian Green.  He said that "police should be more polite and thoughtful to renew their relationship with members of the public".  I couldn't agree more.

On the morning when the plod came to retrieve the clamp I confiscated, an individual whom I believe to be PC Coleman 4331, on behalf of Rundles, proceeded to lecture me without allowing me to speak, stating in so many words that he had the power to violate my flat in search of it if I refused to hand it over.

What is interesting here is that, even though the governments own guidelines have always required that the police take bailiff fraud seriously, Coleman refused to even let me finish my sentences and kept repeating "It's a civil matter" in a mantra fashion, while the dimwitted plod-ette sat smirking silently in the corner.  I was insistent that he listened, but instead he threatened to arrest me for speaking out of turn.  I wasn't threatening and I wasn't even uncivil, much to my own surprise.  I quoted the regulations to him directly, to which he replied as he was leaving "it's all Greek to me, I don't know anything about it."  I suggested that "he ought to fucking well find out, because this won't be the last time".

Essentially, this plod was aiding and abetting a fraud, - and abandoning impartiality by acting as an agent on behalf of Rundles (even though the plod maintain it was a civil matter), while refusing to even hear out the case put to him (with the legislation on screen) that a criminal act had been carried out against me - and that I was a victim of a crime.  According to the plod, it's a civil matter where the public are concerned, but it's a criminal act to defend yourself against well known fraudsters like James Cohen & Co.

At this point, politeness seems somewhat redundant.  But if the plod think that talking over people and shouting down victims of crime is a way in which to secure the respect and co-operation of the public, then we're in bigger trouble that I thought.  To all intents and purposes, the police have simply become the para-military wing of the tax office and the bodyguards of known serial fraudsters.  This is the stuff of third world mafia-state kleptocracies, not first world democracies.  (Stop laughing at the back.)

But times they are a changing.  Today we see, courtesy of a passer by, the true face of the British police.  Essentially they are violent, belligerent, arrogant, bent, lazy, know-nothing incompetents (who think they are the whole of the law), who will only act when they're exposed, and only with instruction from both the police commissioner and the CPS - and even that took some doing.  So, my dear plod, the next time we dance our little dance (and we will), you will excuse me if I am less than civil.  While there are still no laws against standing up for yourself, I will continue to do so until you get your own house in order.

I got mail!

As far as councils go, SGC are not the worst offenders when it comes to greedy profiteering from Liability Orders - but they most certainly are greedy little piggies.  Here is their rather frank admission of fraud:

Dear Mr North,

Thank you for your request for information under the Freedom of Information Act.

Liability Orders granted in pursuit of Council Tax for 2012/2013 = 4,272

The actual cost of issuing = £84.79
Amount charged = £85.00
Total Revenue raised = £363,120

Please let me know if you require clarification on any of the above.

Yours sincerely ,

Mrs L Stevens
Recovery manager 

South Gloucestershire Council

Don't you find it awfully convenient that the supposed cost of running a monthly query against their existing tax database comes to £84.79  per person?  What is going so badly wrong at SGC that it costs them £362,222.88 to print off and send a batch of letters from a mail merge?  And though the law states that only reasonable costs may be charged, even by their own admission, they are rounding it upward.  By their own admission the are embezzling money from the process. I suspect if we were allowed to know the true cost, we would find the fraud is a substantially larger figure than they admit to. Perhaps I should call the police?

Though it is interesting to note that this is the same Mrs L Stevens who referred a specific complaint about a council recovery officer, to that very same council officer, which in my view is an outrageous abuse of process.

Mr North,

I have been forwarded your email as Mrs Hooper is not in the office until Monday 24th February.

The content and the tone of your email have been noted, but I do not intend to dignify it with a detailed response other than to advise you that Mrs Hooper is a very valued & experienced senior member of my Recovery team.

A full investigation of your complaint will be undertaken by Mrs Hooper next week.

I have advised Rundle & Co of your comments relating to their company.

Yours sincerely


Mrs L Stevens
Recovery Manager
South Gloucestershire Council

You will also note, that rather than investigating the alleged fraud by Rundles and referring it to the police, as they are supposed to do, this same creature actually leaks my complaint to the bailiffs themselves.  What we see in SGC's recovery office is a bunch of lazy, arrogant, dishonest crooks who will neither investigate a complaint properly or uphold the law, and leak complaints to their criminal contractors.  When the court case is over, win or lose, there is an abuse of process to address here and Dorothy Hooper and Louise Stevens must be held to account.  While I am considering suing them, an LGO complaint is most certainly in the works.  These grubby parasites really should face the sack.

Warning over council tax scam

Residents are being warned about a council tax scam currently in circulation.  Thousands of people have been contacted by a criminal gang calling themselves "South Gloucestershire Council" with demands for sums exceeding £1000.  Their material claims that "This funding is a vital part of the region's budget and we want to make sure every penny goes towards providing vital front-line services." which, as we know, simply isn't true.  This organisation is a local protection racket whose collection agents are known to the police and are currently under investigation for fraud.  The ringleader of this scam is thought to be serial fraudster, Amanda Deeks, who operates in collusion with local thugs, one of them suspected to be James Cohen.  Residents of South Gloucestershire should call the police should they believe they are a target of this scam.

A sign of things to come?

The Daily Mail reports that a bailiff and his female colleague were shot in south London while they tried to evict a housing association tenant with rent arrears.  The tempation is to let out a small cheer but we do not know the details of this case.  Though if it transpires that the bailiffs behaved in the way that Rundle & Co do, and the police were equally unmoved to investigate, one would not be the least bit surprised at this action - and this was only a matter of time.

Local politician Chuka Umunna has said  “It is very important that those who provide housing and related services can do their jobs without living in fear, never mind without suffering extreme violence of this type."  Given the conduct of various authorities across the country, I say "physician, heal thyself".  If you continue in this manner, then those who "provide housing and related services" will most definiately live in fear, and deservedly so.

If the public cannot rely on the police, the councils and the bailiffs to acknowledge and uphold the law, then there is little recourse but for citizens to take the law into their own hands.  Should the situation not improve, I expect we shall see a great deal more of this - and I, for one, will not lose any sleep over it.