Hissing Geese

Tomorrow we go to trial over the Rundles affair.  I have just had a long chat with my barrister. I was feeling a little pessimistic earlier this week but my barrister knows the judge and apparently he's quite a good stick, so we have better than average chance of winning. And I really could use a win. I am sick of losing to these bastards and just for once it would be nice to take the fight to the enemy.

Propaganda rags such as the Daily Mail claim that "Council tax bills could be cut by an average £100 per household if authorities chased up debts properly." - The message being that we "council tax dodgers" increase the burden on others. This is not so.

Jean Baptiste Colbert, a French finance minister once said “The art of taxation consists in so plucking the goose as to obtain the largest possible amount of feathers with the smallest possible amount of hissing”.

If we had any semblance of democracy there is no way in hell taxation would ever have reached the level it is presently at, and councils would not be running deficits to fund their CEOcracy, their vanity projects, their final-salary-pensions and worthless non-jobs.  So in the absence of democracy it is past the time to hiss - and I have hissed. I have drawn a line in the sand that says if you want my money, you will have to spend more money to get it - because without democracy, our local government is wholly illegitimate.

I may lose tomorrow, but if your council tax isn't going up this year, it is because of people like me (and the good and kind people who have put their hands in their own pockets to support this effort), that you are not paying more. We have hissed.

Special mention must be made of Matt Davies, Mez Fioravanti, Richard North, Jason Bailey & Amy at DWB and Dave Chapman especially, to whom I am eternally greateful. They are the people who made this fight possible - and tomorrow, win or lose, this battle was worth fighting - and I would not do a single thing differently.  If nothing else it has exposed precisely how corrupt local government now is, even if we have no legal recourse.

Given how bent out of shape British justice is, there is always the possibility of losing, where I shall face a large bill, but one way or another the fight will continue.  But if I win... this is only the start.  So all that is left is to wish me luck, for my win is your win.

Busy day!

Fan-mail from Rundles as well this morning!

This below is regarding a liability order from 2012 which was settled directly with the council.  Thus Rundles are harassing me with spam - or they still intend on pursuing me via enforcement action in pursuit of unlawful fees and levy fees for an invalid levy.  Those with good eyes will note the phrase "The above debt remains outstanding despite previous applications for payment." 

You will note that nowhere do they state the "above" amount.  This is the fourth such letter I have had following their attempted fraud, none of which specify an actual outstanding amount.  Thus Rundles are engaged in a form of passive aggression - or are simply amateurish and unprofessional in the extreme. 

Rundles do this because they cannot keep their lies straight between them.  There are disparities between the charges they post through the door - and the version of events they keep on their official log.  This I have seen with my own eyes.  It is entirely deliberate because they benefit from sowing confusion.  Rundles are not honest players.  They are distinctly crooked. 

I got email!

I got fan-mail from Bristow & Sutor...

 

Please quote: SGC-T 7929

Case ID: 1564-3498104

Client ref: 421788726

Dear Sir,

Re: Outstanding Council Tax Arrears owed to South Gloucestershire Council

We write with reference to the above and acknowledge receipt of you recent email, the contents of which have been noted.

We must advise that following your payment of £700.00 to the council on 14/03/14 you still had an outstanding balance of £42.50, hence the enforcement agent visit to your property.

The action we have taken is correct as you did not pay your account in full.

On this occasion, we would be willing to waive the enforcement fee of £235.00 but only upon receipt of payment for £42.50. This must be paid by no later than the close of business 08/05/14.

If we do not receive payment of £42.50 by 08/05/14 we will continue with recovery action against you for the amount of £277.50.

We trust this clarifies the situation.

Bristow & Sutor

My reply is below...

Dear anonymous correspondent,

The Liability Order had an outstanding balance of £700. I checked with the council. You only have lawful authority to levy or act in regard to that amount - which has already been paid, thus you have no further business with me.

£42.50 is the amount allowed by the previous regulations for two visits. You know the rules as well as I do (though your reputation online suggests that you may not).

Prior to 14/03/14 no visits were made to my address and no documentation had was left to suggest they had. The reason the balance was paid on 14/03/14 was because I was made aware that day that Bristow & Sutor were handling the case - by way of the attached document.

This is the document on which the bailiff, who refused to properly identify himself, stated an incorrect balance - and as you can see, stated that there was a charge of zero for that first visit. Thus you are losing money through the improper conduct of your enforcement officers. But I am afraid I am not liable for your chap's ineptitude.

I have a letter from the Minister for Communities and Local Government (Brandon Lewis MP) that states attempting to charge for phantom visits is indeed fraud. This essentially restates the DCLG's own guidelines on the matter. I can send you a copy if you like. Consequently, as you have not made a valid demand for fees that could stand up in court, we take the view that there is no outstanding balance - and no fees.

As to the inflated fees, in adding a further £235, you are attempting to charge fees based on the old rules and the new rules concurrently. The liability order was passed to bailiffs before April 06 when the new regulations came into force, so you may only charge by the old rules for this liability order. Attempting to charge these fees is a misrepresentation of power which is also fraud. The law is Schedule 1 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 (Consequential, Transitional and Saving Provision) Order 2014.

It really is dull read and anyone would think this stuff was written by aliens, but it does check out, so I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and just assume you are mistaken, rather than accuse you directly of fraud. Given how badly written the law is, I can understand how you could make that mistake.

That being the case, I am sure you are anxious to avoid any confrontations or drawn out court cases. That would waste your time and mine, and further tarnish your reputation - so if we leave the matter here, things need not get ugly or expensive. You would be better investing the time and money in training your bailiffs not to make the kind of careless mistakes that could be construed as fraud.

As you are aware, your industry has become quite complacent in recent years because councils have a culture of denial where complaints are concerned, and the police would rather not get involved, but this is likely to change soon because even the CAB is reporting an upsurge in phantom visits. CCTV is now being deployed to detect such attempts at fraud. You might well be caught out one of these days and I understand the consequences are rather expensive and damaging.

I trust this clarifies the situation and I need not reiterate the general thrust of my previous email.

Regards,

Peter North.

Avon & Somerset Liars

Remember this?  That court case was sabotaged at the last minute by Avon & Somerset Police.  It has been some time and were wondering if Avon & Somerset would come up with the goods.  This morning I received a letter from the plod stating that they have requested this blog and this Youtube video be brought to the attention of the judge in consideration of the offence of contempt of court.

You can read the letter by clicking on the images below.  My first observation is that they appear to have dropped the witness intimidation angle.  They have at least shown that much good sense, but there is a problem here below.  PC 2948 Jackson states that "In September 2013 CPS direct were consulted in relation to this and they have requested that this be brought to your attention believing Mr North is in contempt of court by posting the statement on his blog which is accessible to the public."

In this statement PC Jackson makes a liar of herself.  On the 1st of September, a plodette from A&S telephoned me to tell me that I was potentially in contempt of court because of this publication and that I may face charges unless I took it down.  Showing her ignorance of internet she referred to the blog as a website and could not provide me with the specific URL.  She made reference only to a scanned document - of which there are many.  I told her that I would investigate as soon as I could reach a computer but asked her to clarify.  She never called back.  In good faith, I eventually found the offending blog post and, as per her request, took it down and it has not been accessible to the public for many months.  No mention whatsoever was made of the Youtube video.

So not only have Avon & Somerset broken an agreement in pressing for this to be considered, they have omitted this and claim that the document is still available to the public which makes them and PC Jackson dishonourable to say the least, but in this instance - outright liars. But at least now the judge will watch the Youtube video and read the blog. He will be able to review the evidence for himself.  Something which the police have never done - and persistently refused to. Avon & Somerset Police should reflect.  Had they done their jobs in the first place, we wouldn't even be here.

I notice they do not supply the exact URL where the alleged post is located - only the blog address.  Why?  Because it isn't there. Also interesting note how much energy A&S plod are devoting to this, just for a mere pleb who cut off a clamp.  What are they afraid of?  It would have taken less effort to investigate the bailiff fraud.

 

Corporate spin masquerading as news

CIVEA: A thieves guild

REVEALED!!! Says the Daily Mail.  "Council tax bills could be cut by an average £100 per household if authorities chased up debts properly."

This is according to analysis by CIVEA, the bailiff trade association.  This is the same organisation who investigates complaints against bailiffs - and is made up of those very same bailiff companies.  The self-investigating (no faults found) complaints body.

Steve Everson, director general of CIVEA said: 'These figures show that those local authorities that take a more proactive approach to the enforcement of council tax are helping to ease the financial burden on taxpayers and protecting revenue for vital public services on which vulnerable people depend.' His concern for the vulnerable is touching.

What we are looking at is another example of our Uncle Tom Media unquestioningly reporting what is essentially corporate PR spin.  CIVEA would like nothing more than for councils to be more aggressive in collecting "debts".

Presumably, with his new found concern for the vulnerable, he will be barring the likes of James Cohen from his organisation and disassociating himself from fraudsters Rundle & Co and Bristow & Sutor?  I wonder, does it ever occur to Everson, or indeed councils, that there would not be so many vulnerable people were he and his clients not raping them for every spare penny?

They conclude that council tax bills could be cut by an average of £100.  But they wouldn't be, because our councils are nothing but greedy revenue collection machines who have long since forgotten who they are supposed to serve.

This matters not to Everson and his ilk.  There's millions to be made for him and his merry band of thugs if councils take a "more proactive approach to the enforcement of council tax".  Knowing that the police are not mentally equipped to deal with the vagaries of bailiff law, and that councils are staffed by would-be child-rapist enablers, (they who turn a blind eye to the thuggery and fraud of Mr Everson's members), there's every chance he and his ilk can be millionaires by heaping misery on those vulnerable people he is so concerned for.

Not that this troubles the junior hacks at the Daily Mail, or The Guardian for that matter.  It would take a real journalist to blow the lid off this grubby little scam.  And we know what happens to those these days.

Sinister

Child rape: Probably fine with SGC

One of the very few publications who still bother with that awkward and time consuming of disciplines known as "journalism" is Private Eye.  In this latest edition they report on the culture of denial within Rochdale Council.

"After decades of denials Rochdale council began to reassess Knowl View school in 2012 after Chris Marshall alleged that he was forced to perform a sex act with Smith on school property while another “well-dressed man” looked on. More than a dozen former pupils are also identified as abuse victims of other men in internal council reports. They too have never received justice."

This is the same culture of denial that exists in the NHS.  In all areas of public service this same culture of denial exists.  That is why there are Staffordshire citizens pushing up daisies and children are being raped in Rochdale.  Whether Smith is guilty or not, we shall not know, because our councils investigate themselves and find themselves innocent, if they mount any kind of investigation at all.

Dorothy Hooper and "Mrs Williams" of South Gloucestershire Council should reflect.  They are part of that ilk that denies wrong-doing.  Were they part of Social Services, these monstrous crimes would be on their conscience. But as they are part of SGCs recovery department, the vulnerable are being raided for unlawful fees by bandit bailiffs like James Cohen - and Williams et al have nothing to say about it. Good going guys.  Hope you are proud of yourselves.

Developments

Bristow and Sutor have written to me making it known that they intend to use the new regulatory regime to charge me £235 to collect the £42.50 they allege I owe for their phantom visits.  The regulated fee of £235 only applies for the enforcement of debts ordered by a court. As no court has ordered me to pay £42.50 to the bailiffs, their case is non-starter.  If a bailiff says he has a court order for the £42.50 when he has not, then he commits fraud and will be reported as such.

Under the new regulations I owe nothing because paragraph 58(1) of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 says when the debtor pays the debt in full (which I have) enforcement action must cease forthwith and no further enforcement steps can be taken.  When enforcement action ceases bailiffs cannot enforce the recovery of fees, Paragraph 31 of the National Standards for Enforcement Agents 2014. As we understand it, under the new regulations a bailiff cannot even sue you for fees let alone levy distress for them.  If Bristow and Sutor want a court case, I will give them one.

Meanwhile, I've not bothered to pay anything on this years council tax either.  The council have sent me a letter threatening a Liability Order unless I pay £112.09, incurring costs of £85.  So South Gloucestershire Council are still profiteering from unlawful fees.  It's about time someone tested this in court.  If I can put the last two cases to bed this year then I will give it some thought.  But for Bristow and Sutor... it's game on.  Bring it.