A quick reply

I have replied to "Mrs Williams".  I saw little point in giving them both barrels since that wastes only my time.  I'd rather speak with the organ-grinder than the monkey.

Dear Mrs Williams,

Thank you for your letter.

You have been misinformed by Bristow & Sutor.  No such visits took place and no letters were left.  Hence why I was so surprised to learn that Bristow & Sutor were handling the account.  This is typical of the industry, as I discovered with Rundles last year, who also charged for visits not made.  You will note that the CAB says in a survey of 500 people who had bailiffs chasing them between 10 July and 10 December 2013 for council tax debts, 38% were charged fees for visits bailiffs never made.

http://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/index/pressoffice/press_index/press_offic20131223.htm

This is a large enough number for you to treat any assertions from your contractors with suspicion, and as a public servant, you would be negligent if you did not mount a more thorough investigation.  Rogue bailiffs tarnish the reputation of South Gloucestershire Council.  Your refusal to engage in this issue indicates an improper relationship with your contractors.

You will also note that confirming residency from a neighbour I have never met is insufficient proof of a visit.  That would not meet proper evidential standards for a BT or British Gas visitor and it is insufficient for bailiffs.  You also seem to be under the misapprehension that merely attending the property constitutes a visit.  The purpose of the visit allowances is to give the debtor the opportunity to pay.  Since Bristow & Sutor never made any visit, and if they did, they did not leave a letter, there is no basis on which to charge £42.50.  Also, given that I have not met an employee of Bristow & Sutor before, I would not be able to verify that their visitors, (whoever they may be) are certified bailiffs either. You don't know for a fact the alleged visits were made by a certified bailiff, and nor do I.  You are asking me to pay unlawful fees entirely on the basis of hearsay.

Since you have been unable to demonstrate that any visits were made and have refused to investigate properly, you can either drop the charges or see me in court.  An LGO complaint has been lodged.

Peter North.

Stonewalling

SGC: Liars

Today I received a phone call from Avon & Somerset Police in response to my fresh complaint about Bristow & Sutor. The plod in question (I didn't catch the name) was refreshingly bright for a plod, and surprisingly polite.  But alas, to no avail.  This year the plod have a whole new line of bullshit. Finally the plod have admitted that advance fee fraud is a criminal matter (and not a civil matter) and did not repeat that usual mantra.  This year, the official line is that they cannot investigate without a ruling from the Local Government Ombudsman on a given case. This does not take account of the fact that the LGO have already made several rulings on "phantom visits" and so Avon & Somerset Police are effectively passing the buck and leaving it to the LGO to decide if a crime has taken place.  An unusual precedent for the police to be farming their work out to quasi-NGO's. 

Unfortunately, trying to get a plod to think past his conditioning is about as fruitful as swatting flies with a hammer.  They have their official line and conveniently, it means they don't have to do anything apart from tick the "no action required" checkbox on their database to say that they have followed up on a complaint.  They must be so proud of their efficiency.

But the fun doesn't stop there.  Today I received a letter from South Gloucestershire Council from "Mrs Willaims".  I have had prior dealings with this odious creature.  She is most unpleasant, as indeed all council employees are.  She asserts that Bristow & Sutor have in fact made prior visits to my property (of which, quelle surprise, there is no evidence whatsoever). She has consulted with them, and taken their word for it.  I am supposed to accept on hearsay that they have visited my property.  Not at any time prior to their "final warning" have their bailiffs made themselves apparent, hence why I was so surprised Bristow & Sutor were the designated bailiff company.

She also asserts that each visit was made by a certified bailiff.  How am I to have confirmed this when I have never met an individual from Bristow & Sutor?  Normally I would ask them for their full name and to see their ID, then check the internet register of certified bailiffs.  I have not been able to confirm this as I have only a first name on which to go by.

Williams asserts that the lack of proper self-identification in no way invalidates the legality of the fees for the alleged visits.  What she is saying is that the word of the bailiff company is sufficient for the council and they will uphold any claim they make without investigation or verification.  But that is nothing we did not know. The underlying theme to all this is that the council and their criminal contractors view a visit as merely driving to the property, and leaving any communications is entirely optional.  I can't say I blame the bailiffs for not doing so, since everything they post through my door is recorded as evidence.

South Gloucestershire Council are not interested as to whether the law has been followed (or even their own guidelines).  Their only concern is that they get their money.  So the next time someone tells you that paying your council tax is some sort of moral duty, remind them that councils take your money under threat of force, and are happy to break their own laws in order to get it.

My own experiences, in addition to the work of EUReferendum.com and dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk point to a national epidemic of fraud that neither the councils nor the police have any interest in putting a lid on. Naturally I will be writing a full and frank reply to Mrs Williams, which will be published here when I get near internet that works properly (thanks BT).  I would try appealing to the creatures human side but given how it writes and who it works for, it's fair to assume it hasn't got one.  

Last years dispute is still ongoing and this year I hold no greater hope of making a breakthrough, but I take some comfort in that bailiffs are now at least vaguely acknowledging the presence of a regulatory fee schedule on their hastily scribbled, fraudulent communications - and the Plod have at least dropped their "civil matter" mantra by passing the buck to the LGO.  This is progress of sorts. But the police now rely on you giving up and going away.  The LGO will only act when the council complaint process has been followed in full, and you can see where that gets you.

I have to hand it to SGC though.  This year they have swatted up on the law. They're now getting quite devious about this because if they admit just one instance of malpractice then that opens the floodgates.  Consequently I expect them to dangle the threat of prison over my head if I don't pay the fees this time.  But I will have my day in court.  And that will cost the state more than £42.50.  Any attempt to clamp my car will be met the usual resistance.

As soon as my internet is working properly I will post the full letter from SGC.  It is breath-taking, even by their standards, both in its brazenness and arrogance.  I am not surprised "Mrs Williams" does not wish to disclose her full identity, but that in itself tells you rather a lot.

And still they try it on

Hello Ratfans!  It's been a while.  Nothing happens fast in British justice!  Still no sign of the plod on these extra charges.  My barrister informs me that the CPS have chased the police but they have not as yet bothered to reply.  Shocked!  Shocked I tell you!  Howsoever, I shall cross that bridge when I come to it.  I have a new trial date for the criminal damage charge sometime in late May.

Meanwhile, just to make things interesting I decided to drag my feet on this years council tax too.  I received the usual bog standard letters in the post from Rundles, but it seems they have chickened out and passed the job on to Bristow & Sutor.  Fresh meat for the grinder.  Naturally, their frst shot across my bow was about as corrupt as you would expect it to be.  So I have complained to the council...

(Submitted by form to SGC)

I have been sent two letters in the mail from Rundle & Co bailiffs over the last year regarding outstanding council tax (neglecting to specify the amount owed). However, today, a company unknown to me, Bristow and Sutor, hand delivered a "final warning". It was my understanding that Rundles were handling the "debt".

I checked with SGC to see how much was owed. The actual amount outstanding is £700. The law that sets statutory bailiffs fees for collecting unpaid council tax is Regulation 5 of The Council Tax and Non-Domestic Rating (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2006 which provides for £24.50 for the first visit.

Given than I was not in this morning, the bailiffs have not yet confirmed residency and thus cannot charge, as this is known as a "phantom visit." Only a certified bailiff can charge fees and the bailiff signing the letter, if indeed the individual who delivered it was a certified bailiff (of which there is no evidence), neglected to state his full name, as the form letter specifies he should.

He also states that no charges were added for todays visit and has included his fees in the outstanding amount. This is a photo I took of the letter... 

Click for full scale

This is essentially false representation and advance fee fraud. I will be reporting it to the police on Monday. This is not the first time bailiffs working for South Glos Council have attempted to extort fees not owed and charge for phantom visits. Now that I have supplied you with evidence, you must now terminate their contract. They are in breach of even your own guidelines as well as the law.

Peter North.

I will spare you my predictions, but it will be amusing to see what weasel words they come up with this time to justify their complicity in a fraud epidemic.  This helpfully demonstrates that it is not just Rundles who are crooks, but the whole industry is acting outside the law with the tacit approval of the councils and the police.  The police reaction on Monday will be interesting.  I very much expect them to stick to their "civil matter" mantra.  But I know what I'm doing this time around.  And I am going to create some noise.

On contempt of court

A&S Plod:  Go sit in the corner.

Avon & Somerset Dunces must be off their rockers.  My barrister isn't especially up on matters of Contempt of Court, but y'see, we have this little "internet" thing - Something I know the plod are only vaguely familiar with - and we know rather a lot of people who do know something on the subject.

The point of the law pertaining to Contempt by Publication is to avoid a situation whereby publication of material might prejudice a fair trial.  Given the fact the first trial was conducted unimpeded (without even a mention of this blog) tells us that the likelihood of it impeding a fair trial was somewhere around zero.  The whole thing is risible.

As I understand it, it is primarily governed by the Contempt of Court Act 1981 ("CCA 1981"), which makes it an offence to publish material which creates a substantial risk of serious prejudice to pending court proceedings.  I would like to see them argue that the (now edited) blog post (on a low circulation blog) poses a "substantial risk".  I'm sure we could all use a good laugh.  Even with my own creative mental gymnastics, I would struggle to make a credible case out of that.  The law Commission has its own view on this:

The law on contempt by publication must balance the right of a defendant to a fair trial, with the right of the publisher to freedom of expression.  There are also concerns that the procedures for dealing with this form of contempt may not be as fair and efficient as possible.  

Given that I am both the publisher and the defendant it's difficult to see how or why I would prejudice the outcome of my own trial, especially when that which was published was only of marginal significance.  If the Plod REALLY want to make this into a landmark Freedom of Expression case, then I'm happy to entertain them (at their expense).  Then there is the matter of context.  Irrespective of whether or not a trial was in progress, I would still have publicly exposed Nicola Spring as a fraud.  The fact she was a witness (and not EVEN an eye-witness) never came into my head.  This blog is about serving the public interest and that's exactly what I did.

The fact that A&S Plod are even considering this tells me just how desperate they are.  They called me about it some months ago, AFTER the initial verdict (apparently unaware that I was appealing the it).  It is then that the plodette in question said that unless I edited the "forum" that I "could", bizarrely, face a contempt of court charge.  I told her, that I was unsure exactly what she was talking about so she would have to call back with specific URL's  She appeared not to know what a URL was and never called me back.  But I did comply.  So again I ask, why bring this up now if not to sabotage the ongoing proceedings?  What are Avon and Somerset afraid of?

I cannot say for certain how the Plod will play this.  If they are daft enough to turn a minor transgression into a major case, they will need to bring me in for questioning.   They can do this one of two ways.  They can either do it by appointment with my solicitor, or they can pull their usual dirty trick of hammering on the door at 6am on a weekday, while I'm still in my pyjamas, then bang me in a cell all day - and then fob me off with some recently qualified duty solicitor who is unaware of the broader case. 

It should be noted that my medical records show that I do suffer from severe panic attacks and am on a higher dose of medication to treat it - and I'm suspected as having Aspergers Syndrome.  Anything the plod attempts to extract, after banging me up in a cell all day, can easily be argued in court as taken under duress.  If they want to turn this into a human rights circus, I'll hapilly oblige them and take it all the way to the European courts.  In short... try it bitches.  I'll be waiting with bells on.

As to witness intimidation, the law describes it as "an act which intimidates, and is intended to intimidate, another person (“the victim”)".  My intention was merely to expose Nicola Spring as a shill on a public advice forum, while posing as an ordinary member of the public.  As to whether I "intimidated" her, it is difficult to see how this large and hatchet-faced woman (a certified bailiff), who intimidates people for a living, could possibly be intimidated by this exposure - from this humble blog no less!

Witness intimidation is also described as "an act which harms, and is intended to harm, another person or, intending to cause another person to fear harm, (or) he threatens to do an act which would harm that other person".  I would like to see them prove intent given that I issued no threats whatsoever and they will have to work hard to define "harm" in this context, when contrasted with the public good.  

If this is what little old me can dig up with only the most cursory inspection of the law, imagine what an experienced solicitor is going to do with it?  It should be noted that if Avon And Somerset Police pursue this line, we are then likely looking at a jury trial, in which case, all of the details of this case come out of the woodwork, including the professional incompetence of PC Bird, who logged my car as stolen, entirely on hearsay, resulting in further harrassment by the police on a public highway.  The conduct of the bailiffs themselves will also be described in detail.

If these dumb-asses think a jury will give a verdict in their favour, then good luck to them.  They will need it.  I suspect the plod are playing double or quits here.  Any charge that sticks on me will absolve them of their obligation to investigate bailiff fraud.  That is their strategy - and you can see why the council have a vested interest in pressing the police to shut my activities down.  I think they're hoping I will throw in the towel.  Not gonna happen!  And if I lose, the great thing is, there's always this years council tax to play with.  I can keep going with this.  Can you?  I'm game if you are.

Corruption or just bone idleness?

Click for full size

If any of you thought I was exaggerating when I said the police are wilfully turning a blind eye to bailiff crime, here is the actual letter sent to me from Avon & Somerset plod. Note that not at any time did "Investigator" Peter Miller attempt to review the evidence in my possession, or even speak to me in person, or indeed examine the case notes held by Rundles.  He has not been even remotely bothered to familiarise himself with the law.

He is essentially saying he's not going to look into the case because the court granted a Liability Order. He is saying fraud, intimidation and trespass against goods is fine, since in their view, a Liability Order is free licence to break the law, to any extent, without intervention by the police.  He also states that only if an unrelated matter is resolved, in my favour, in court (the clamping) will he consider an investigation. 

I call this corruption because I cannot think of any other word to describe it.  This has too much in common with other examples of such breathtaking indifference I have seen, over the last year, to view it merely as incompetence.  This adds to the growing body of evidence that suggests a high level strategic decision by the police to allow bailiff malpractice and fraud - and to throw the book at the victim if they dare to say no to fraudsters. 

Police: A warped sense of priorities

Plod:  In it for the money.

Someone said something mildly offensive on Twitter today.  The police are now investigating.  "A Police Scotland spokesman said: "Any reports of racist, offensive or abusive comments made online will be thoroughly investigated and those responsible will be brought to justice. "

But if you threaten to break into someone house and confiscate their belongings without lawful authority and extort unlawful fees - that's fine.  National epidemic of bailiff fee fraud?  Nah...  Not remotely interested... Throw the book at the victim instead.   Too busy fitting up Tory ministers and thought-policing on Twitter.

Meanwhile there is evidence of dangerous community divisions where the police have no idea what is going on in their own back yard.  What exactly are we paying these people for?

The plot thickens

Rundles: Crying "intimidation"

Today the court case was supposed to be concluded.  I have a VERY talented barrister who even spotted something I didn't!  We compared notes for an hour before proceedings and by the time we had rehearsed the arguments, we both concluded that we would have to work very hard to lose this case.  The notes kept by Rundles are in complete disarray, and if I didn't have enough case law for my chap to nail their balls to the wall already, what he added was just rubbing it in.  I can say with complete confidence that Rundles are a bunch of crooks and they broke the law.  If they wish to test this in a civil case, I double-dare them.  Today should have been a slam dunker.  But...

We were well prepared to go in there and knock their socks off. But Avon and Scummerset Plod had different ideas.  They sabotaged the trial by suggesting to the prosecution that they are "considering" filing a complaint of contempt of court and, get this... Witness Intimidation!

The very suggestion of this moves the case out of the criminal realm and into matters of procedural law, outside the remit of criminal law - and thus the case has been adjourned.  The basis of the complaint, as I understand it, stems from a phone call I received back in September from a thick-as-pigshit plod.  The plodette told me that I had published the email address of a witness on my "forum" (thick-as-pigshit plod does not know the difference between a blog and a forum) and I had posted a scanned image of a witness statement that could be considered contempt of court (if I did not remove it).

I told her that, as a blogger with a strong commitment to transparency and freedom of speech, I would seek legal advice, and if that advice found that I was in error, I would remove the offending statements.  As it happens, I was perfectly within my rights to publish the email address of Nicola Spring, though the scan of the witness statement was sketchy territory.  By my own good will, I decided to self-censor and edit both of the "offending" posts.  I considered this to be the end of the matter.

However... Rundles made a complaint of witness intimidation (oh the irony) on the basis of me publishing a witnesses email address.  I did so on the basis of this post, whereby I uncovered the fact she was acting as a paid shill on a public advice forum, attempting to discredit and libel me, ironically using the forum username "truthful and honest".  As a programmer, and a php forum administrator, I posess the skill to backtrack posts without violating forum security, and was able to deduce the origin of these posts.

I take the view that that exposing such underhanded tactics is not "witness intimidation".  A better description would be "journalism".  It is in the public interest to reveal that a bailiff firm is trolling bailiff advice forums, pretending to be a member of the public, lying about the case in question, and calling ME a liar.  It should be exposed. 

If Rundles are engaged in such activity then any email it traces back to is a de-facto a business address  - and if I publish that address, I am perfectly within my rights to do so.  If members of the public then registered their disgust by emailing that address then I cannot be held accountable.  If you live by the sword, then you will die by the sword.

Howsoever, Rundles is playing the victim, presumably because they know as well as I do exactly how shaky their case really is, hence their attempt to derail proceedings.  I should have expected nothing less.  This tells me they are worried.  The plod have already admitted in a letter to me that they turn a blind eye to bailiff crime if a Liability Order has been issued, and have said to me that if I win this case, only then will they entertain the possibility of fraud.

Given that I have employed a highly successful, charismatic, competent and lovely barrister, I think Avon and Scummerset are worried.  Had the case proceeded as planned today, Rundles would now be facing a fraud investigation, and the plod would be answering for their wilful negligence.  You can see why they both have a vested interest in stalling these proceedings.

And that is the crux of this.  Avon and Somerset Police appear to be engaged in an abuse of process to pervert the course of justice.  They could have brought these complaints to me at any time since September.  Don't you find it interesting that they waited for the day of the trial to spring the suggestion that they are "considering" charges?

Rundles and the Plod are up to their necks and they know it.  My message to them is that you cannot win.  My agenda has always been to make it cost you more than it costs me, and to take corrupt bailiffs off the street.  I had already achieved this aim long before today - and every day after is just icing on the cake.  Rundles lost a days trading today.  And if it is the last thing I ever do, I will make sure the guilty pay for what they have done.  And there is NOTHING you can do to me that will deter me from doing what is right.

I am told Contempt of Court may carry a modest custodial sentence as a worst case scenario.  Do what you will to me, but there are many waiting in he wings who will take up my sword if I fail.  But I will not fail.  Because I will not rest until justice is served, whatever form that may take.  You have turned a simple criminal case into something much more significant.  Now you are fighting on my battlefield.  And you will pay for your mistake.