Delay

Just a note to say this battle is still ongoing.  The hearing has been delayed until January and I still intend on fighting these thieving parasite scum.  A document has come into my possession that means Rundles, the Police and SGC should be concerned.  I will be looking for damages from all three.

Still here...

Just so you know, I have a court date for 26th September 2013.  I haven't gone away.  Meanwhile the investigation into the criminal activities of Rundles (for which SGC is also liable) goes on. 

Dear DI Stainer,

I have contacted the Secretary of State at the Department for Communities/Minister for Local Government, Mr Brandon Lewis MP.

Below is a photo of the pertinent part of his letter.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/1234316_10151881408775701_1774197323_n.jpg

The precise regulation is here...

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1992/613/regulation/45/made

45.—(1) Where a liability order has been made, the authority which applied for the order may levy the appropriate amount by distress and sale of the goods of the debtor against whom the order was made.

That is to say that the "levy" of my Audi is not by any means the "appropriate amount", for fees which are not even provable.  You may add that to the list of charges against Rundles.

Many thanks,

Peter North.

Comedy gold

Some days this feels like more hassle than it's worth.  Today is not one of them.  An eagle-eyed reader reminded me of a forum post I made some weeks ago on the excellent bailiffhelpforum.co.uk.  It seems not everyone is a supporter.  I'm being trolled by someone with the user name "truthful and honest".

I believe that the action Avenger took has been confirmed as ILLEGAL and he now has a criminal record (if he didn't already have one before) People like you should just pay what is owed, rather than wasting your energies trying to wriggle out of paying what is fair and just. Shame on you

"Fair and just" would be a lawful charge for the liability order and fees as outlined in Schedule 5 of the The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Act  - that, and clamping with lawful authority.  Neither the council nor the bailiffs saw fit to obey the law as I have previously outlined here ad nauseum.

Our troll continues...

My only problem with Avenger would be that he is not putting the facts. Why should he be allowed to slander someone with no redress. I dont have a personal problem with him, just forums like this one and the lies he is spouting.

Of course, there is plenty of opportunity for redress.  If Rundle & Co believe this is slander, then they can either take me to small claims court for their fees or take civic action.  They would of course have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that their charges were lawful and they had lawful authority to clamp.  Hold my breath I will not.  They continue...

Im not a Bailiffs biggest fan, believe me, and I am sure some can be corrupt, but this forum has just turned into a witch hunt. Its sickening.  I accept there are people out there who may have genuine points to make, but when you listen to idiots like Avenger, who HAS been proven in the wrong, you are only demeening (sic) yourself, and your point.

You can read my response on their forum.  This individual seems to know more than they are letting on. I wonder why that is?   I looked at this trolls posting history and they have only made five posts, all of which are on this specific thread.  

Course, being a programmer and a php forum administrator, I posses a certain degree of skill and was able to determine "Truthful and honest" is none other than "Nicky Spring" posting from her Hotmail account - AKA Nicola Spring, of Rundle & Co. - The phantom visitor herself! - and their main witness.

No doubt since she is "truthful and honest", she will return to the forum and outline exactly why she thinks persons such as I are "lying through their teeth"?  I'm only going off their case log file in the trial pack.  If I am in error, perhaps Ms Spring should take better care to take truthful notes.  I will be sure to press her on this the next time I cross examine her in the witness box.

"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.

Regards

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 27^th 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.

What does it take?

Well it seems I have rattled a few cages.  After the last exchange with the plod, it now seems an investigation is warranted.  I suspect it to be a box ticking exercise, but I shall withhold my cynicism for now.  I won't publish the original email from the plod because the extrapolations in my reply below gives you a fair idea of what they said.  This is about to get interesting.

Dear DI Stainer,

Thank you for your email.  Unfortunately for both of us, I have a few points to make, and for transparency, I have copied in my barrister.

You highlight from the explanatory notes of the Protection of Freedoms Act: "In addition, bailiffs have a mix of statutory and common law powers to immobilise and tow away vehicles for the purposes of enforcing debts (including those arising out of unpaid taxes and court fines)"

You have not identified which statutory and common law powers those are.  Clamping rights largely pertain to parking and traffic enforcement - and council tax recovery is an entirely separate strata of law.  Unless you know different, there is no basis in law that permits clamping in relation to council tax enforcement - especially in pursuit of bailiff fees after the debt to the council was settled.  The explanatory notes do not explicitly grant lawful authority in relation to council tax enforcement.  Common law only provides for a car to be levied and a walking possession agreement to be made.  They did not have lawful authority to clamp.  Additionally, if a bailiff leaves a premises without taking the seized goods or vehicle (or leaves a wheel clamp on the vehicle unattended), the levy becomes what is called, an abandoned levy, thus I was entirely within my rights to remove it and they have committed an offence.

Furthermore, when you say "I have reviewed the legislation that you have provided under the Council Tax (administration and Enforcement) regulation 1992, and the Government guidance on enforcement. This states that a reasonable fee can be applied for making a visit to premises with a view to levying distress (whether the levy is made or not)”.  I am familiar with that particular law.  It's as clear as mud due to the extended amendments and supplementary fee schedules.  You are quoting the obsolete part of the law.  The law has since been amended:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1992/613/schedule/5/made

In Schedule 5 (charges connected with distress)—
(a)in column (2) of the Table in paragraph 1—
(i)in the row corresponding to head A(i) of column (1), for “£22.50” substitute “£24.50”,
(ii)in the row corresponding to head A(ii) of column (1), for “£16.50” substitute “£18.00”,

To save you the bother, and you can verify this on ANY bailiff advice website you like; a bailiff may only charge £24.50 for the first visit and £18 for the second.  Further fees can only consist of levy fees - "reasonable costs and fees incurred": to which there is no "reasonable" basis for an extra fee of £150 when no levy has been made.  It is also a conveniently round number wouldn't you say?

Furthermore, paragraph 62 of Complaint numbers 95A01890 and 95A04826 against London Borough of Ealing the Local Government Ombudsman disallowed such fees because no goods had been levied. These fees were also disallowed in the Local Government Ombudsman's report of 29 November 2012. It is akin with charging for work not done and thus is fraud by false representation.  At the time of meeting their first bailiff, no goods had been levied, thus there was no basis in law for a levy fee.  THAT is fraud.

Assuming you could find a justification in law for such fees it is STILL redundant on the basis that the debt was paid just after the second PROVABLE visit.  There is no proof whatsoever that the bailiffs visited on the 22nd October or the 25th October.  All we have is the statement by Nicola Spring that she visited but she states there was no-one home - so we only have her word for it that visits were actually made.  Besides which, In their case log, they state on the 23rd Oct 2012:...

"Visit fee(s): 24.50. door: white. Lock: Yale. Desc: Semi-detached.  The bailiff called to the property, no reply.  Letter left." 

There is no letter of any kind, nor is my lock a Yale lock and the description of the property does not take into account that mine is a top floor flat of a semi-detached.  I suspect all they did was send out a runner to the house to make basic observations; a fairly typical bailiff tactic.  You will also note from their notes that they "levied" on 19/11/12 - so how is it that they could charge levy fees at any point prior to this date?

You ask that I prove they did not visit on the first two alleged dates, which is not possible - but given the evidence at hand, there is no evidence they did.  The only visits we can verify are those both parties admit to.  The only visits that can be legitimately verified were on 1/11/12 and 16/11/12 - to which both parties agree.  The letter posted on 1/11/12 had an immediate mark-up of £192.50 (prior to the levy date in their records) - which is not in any way lawful for a first visit, and I can bore you at length with multiple government sources that says so if needs be.  Trust me, I'm more bored by this than you are because I've had to write this a dozen times since January to get the police to investigate.  Because the debt was paid immediately after the second provable visit, the maximum they could charge is £42.50 and would I have paid it had they billed me for that amount.  But there is no way in hell I am going to give way to fraud.

And if you want to know who you are dealing with, take a look at this:

http://www.thisissussex.co.uk/Bailiff-charged-110-making-wait-hour/story-18857109-detail/story.html#axzz2Ya4bvW85

Lastly, and please forgive the clumsy formatting of this email (I'm hating writing it as much as you are reading it) -but to quote your email...

"The Government guidance that you provided set out the power that the bailiffs work under and make it clear that the responsibility is that of the Local Authority. Any complaints that are to be made regarding fee’s should be made to the Council in the first instance who have a duty to investigate this properly. As a result of their investigation if there is evidence of unlawful attendance fee’s then we will view their findings and consider taking action under the Fraud Act as outlined by 5.8 of the guidance which you highlighted.  I will therefore ensure that an officer makes contact with South Gloucestershire to review their investigation in relation to the fee’s charged to establish whether they have breached the legislation and whether there is a case to answer. Also if you are able to provide us with evidence that a visit did not take place then this is something that we can look into."

I have already outlined the basis of the phantom visits.  As to South Glos. Council, I don't expect you will get very far with that in that they are up to their necks in it as well, since they upheld the fees for the "phantom visits" without even examining the evidence I presented to them.  The relationship between South Gloucestershire Council and Rundles is a little too cosy for my liking.  Rather than addressing my complaint about their contractors, as is their obligation, they merely forwarded my complaint to the bailiffs who issued a press release style reply.  In short, SGC did not conduct an investigation at all.  All I got was a cursory reply from a recovery officer a few moments after my original complaint.  It is not for a junior recovery officer to adjudicate on matters of law.  That is for the police and for the courts.  The council will spin the same garbage they told me - and your investigation would be sloppy if you merely took their word for it.  - And if you do, I will visit consequences up Avon & Somerset Police should I find even the slightest irregularity in your investigation. It sounds as though you are willing to accept anything the council says as an unassailable truth, when they are essentially complicit in this fraud themselves.

During the trial regarding the clamp removal, I pressed both witnesses from Rundles to supply EXACT copies of the letters posted through my door, but they were unable to do so since they only use a standard proforma and hastily scribble in biro (at the door) an amount they think they can justify using industry sophistry - without even recording the amounts they charge.  When your investigator visits, I will be able to demonstrate this since I am the only holder of this particular evidence.  This is why I am been so adamant that you investigate because hitherto this exchange, no police officer has examined the evidence.

Meanwhile, I would like to thank you for your efforts so far.  It has been an uphill battle over many months to get the police to take this seriously and I look forward to the conclusion of this matter.  It is long past the time these predatory bandits were held to account for their misdeeds.

Yours sincerely,

Peter North.

SGC: Half-arsed, lazy, incomplete and wrong.

I have asked SGC to outline their spending and revenues by year for the last ten years, broken down between business rates, council tax, central funding and all other revenues from fines, forfeitures and charges.  It is my belief that the latter category now exceeds any other form of income - and some of the data they sent seems to confirm that.  However, as expected, the reply was half-arsed, lazy, incomplete and wrong.  They had not bothered to properly read the request or to adequately respond to it.  But why break a habit of a lifetime?

I would attempt to to trawl their own accounts myself but they make a habit of varying the format regularly and using opaque terms without proper explanation of each strand of data.  In effect, you have to be a public sectoroid accountant to make any sense of it, and that's how they prefer it.

The reason for such a request is that there is a referendum lock on all council tax increases, whereby if a council wishes to increase its revenue by more than 2% they must obtain the direct consent of the people.  In the face of that inconvenient obstacle known as democracy, rather than obey they law, they have simply walked around it, and now leave no stone unturned in the pursuit of a quick buck - where no law shall stand in the way of their unbridled lust for the private wealth of the public.

I have asked SGC to properly complete the request but as yet have heard nothing - and don't expect to either.  In light of this I felt compelled to do a little basic research of my own.  I cannot guarantee the accuracy of the chart below with it being based on my own limited extrapolations from the published documentation, but if these figures are true then it raises more questions than answers.

For all the protestations in the media of "cash strapped councils", we can see they are anything but, and in spite of a massive leap in revenues, most likely from dishonest charges and fines, they still manage to spend more than they steal.  Do you recall consenting to this?  I don't.

It is for that reason I consider it a moral obligation to delay and withhold council tax for as long as possible, and it is why I make it a point to make it cost them to collect it.  So far this saga has involved the Police Commissioner, my MP, a senior official in the Fraud office, two senior plod, six junior plod, several recovery officers, a clerk of the court, an accounts manager, three magistrates, four bailiffs, three recovery officers, two police cars, a pursuit down the M42, a missing wheel clamp and a broken padlock - all over nine months.  And I only just submitted the court appeal yesterday.  This isn't over.

Yes, in the end I paid my council tax, but by my ready reckoning, it has cost the local authorities several thousand pounds to extract their £1178.  As it stands presently, it will require six years or more of my council tax just to cover the costs of collecting last years sum - and it won't cost me a penny, whether I win in court or not.

So I say to SGC, it's cheaper all round if you actually investigate bailiff fraud and insist that your contractors obey the law, stop ripping off the poor with liability order charges, and while you're at it, learn to live within your means and stop dishonestly evading the democratic process.  And if you're still not getting the message, wait and see what I have in store for you next year.

A delivery of bovine excretal matter.

I sometimes think there is a factory somewhere that churns out Stepford-esque public officials, all designed with the same narrow set of parameters, which explains the basic lack of imagination, humanity, attention to detail, personality and comprehension skills.  Today I received an absolutely classic piece of corporate-speak drivel from an evidently senior police official.  You could be forgiven for thinking this was from a press officer - because in effect, that's all senior officials are now; apologists for the pyramid of ineptitude and indifference that lies beneath them.  Take a look at this...

Dear Mr North,

I have been asked to respond to your e mail to the PCC Office dated 19th June 2013. Please accept my apology for the delay in responding due to leave and other operational commitments.

I have reviewed the information that you have provided and I understand that you have reported the matter to Action Fraud. You will be aware that the role of Action Fraud is to work with a range of partners with the aim of making fraud more difficult to commit in the UK. This approach will work to tackle fraud across the spectrum but also works on identifying fraud types and fraud issues that are a notable problem. This will ensure that the fight against fraud in the UK is a coordinated one.

Unfortunately, the Police are unable to investigate every report of fraud individually, but the information provided will build the intelligence picture about fraud. All fraud reports are utilised by the National Fraud Intelligence Bureau (NFIB) to inform the wider intelligence picture and identify emerging threats to the country which are then referred for investigation.

In your case, I am aware that there is an ongoing civil matter that was due in Court on 12th July in respect of which you were advised by PC 2803 Williams to await the outcome of that case prior to a final decision by Avon & Somerset Constabulary on your complaint. It may be that your communication to the office of the PCC crossed with that conversation with PC Williams and I anticipate that following the outcome of that hearing you will be in contact with PC Williams should you wish further consideration to be made.

I understand that you are not satisfied by the response that you have received from your report to Action Fraud. I can only reiterate the response that you have previously received from Mrs Mountstevens. I have recently taken responsibility as the force lead for Action Fraud and the issue of feedback to victims of fraud following a report to Action Fraud is something that has been raised with the NFIB and the Action Fraud National Force Liaison Manager. Whilst the response you have received from Action Fraud has been agreed with the victim support service, please be assured that we value your feedback and will seek to utilise that feedback in improving the service provided.

Yours Sincerely

Kirstie
Dr Kirstie Cogram
Manager
Financial Investigation & Economic Crime
Serious & Organised Crime Group
ex. 66641
Tel: 01275 816641 / 07920 757908

My first thoughts were "is this a wind up?"  They know perfectly well by now that this wasn't a civil matter.   The part highlighted tells you this automoton has only examined the case in the most cursory sense.  The plod did not at any point state that an investigation was dependent on the outcome of the trial.  I would have torn strips off them if they had.  The CPS even agreed to an adjournment of the trial on the basis that it was our understanding an investigation was in progress.  She has essentially re-stated what I already know from the pig-ignorant and lazy response of the the plod.  I really don't know why they bother.

The short hand version of this letter is "Dear Mr North, I'm too busy counting paper-clips to look at your case and I don't understand it anyway - but because I'm very important I will cobble together a few key phrases from the public sector bullshit handbook and then tell you to basically fuck off."

That's fine.  I didn't expect much.  Expecting a public official to do their job is like expecting a cat to bark, but I'd have preferred the honest version just to save time.  That said, such casual insolence deserves a somewhat verbose reply - and since so much of this is now pre-written thanks to this blog, it's very little effort on my part to do so.

Dear Dr Cogram,

Thank you for your email. I quite agree that the police cannot investigate every report of fraud individually, however in this instance, I was in possession of hard evidence, yet the police refused to even accept a complaint. The only way I was able to get a crime number was to use the action fraud website and pursue it further from there.

The reason the police neglected their duty in this matter is that there seems to be an internal directive to treat advance fee fraud by bailiffs as a civil matter, in spite of several statements from the government since 2007 that fee fraud is indeed a criminal offence. Though Mrs Mountstevens herself initially maintained it was a civil matter, Advance Fee Fraud has never been a civil matter (as the police maintain) and it is only in light of the recent guidelines from the DCLG that I was able to get any movement at all in the direction of a proper investigation.

So up until the arrival of the Action Fraud website, there was no possible means of reporting bailiff fraud, which means the authorities collectively have little or no telemetry or intelligence on this kind of crime. Even your own website does not list bailiff fraud as a category and one is expected to know the intricacies of fraud law in order to categorise it properly. One can see why the average citizen doesn't bother to report such to the police (and takes such matters into their own hands). The reason you do not acknowledge the seriousness of this fraud epidemic is because you collectively deny its existence - and use your lack of data in relation to it to reinforce this view. If you don't see it, it isn't happening it seems.

You are correct in that there was a court case on 12 July 2013, though it was not a civil case, as you would know had you familiarised yourself with the details before contacting me. The court case was to discern whether my actions were reasonable by way of removing a bailiff's wheel clamp. The magistrates view was that there were means available to me that I neglected to explore before resorting to removing their clamp, thus my actions were not viewed as reasonable - and consequently I am guilty of Criminal Damage. I beg to differ, and will appeal, but that is not relevant to the matter at hand.

The court case itself was not to decide whether or not my allegations of fraud against Rundles Bailiffs were valid or not. In fact the magistrates made no ruling on this at all, because that was not in their remit. You are correct in that the police have awaited the verdict before initiating an investigation. They have used it as an excuse not to investigate - as they have wrongfully read the verdict as a vindication of the bailiffs, when it is entirely immaterial to the allegations of fraud. So yet again the police have not only ducked the issue, they have merely sat on an investigation and allowed the outcome of this trial to prejudice their decision to investigate. When I am finished with the appeal process, regardless of the outcome, I will turn all my attention on a police complaint and will present other victims of Rundles bailiffs in support of it. They are mistaken if they think I will let this drop.

The police have been rude and dismissive from the outset and I would even say lazy at this point. I am a victim of a crime and have been stonewalled by the council and the police - and now your own office. I am astonished by this. There is now a cottage industry of legal services to deal with rogue bailiffs and thousands of anecdotal accounts of bailiff fee fraud on internet forums and yet the whole law enforcement establishment prefers to stick its fingers in its ears and deny the problem exists.

You will be aware that even small councils are issuing anywhere between five and ten thousand liability orders a year for council tax - and if even half of these result in bailiff action, whereby they routinely employ unlawful tactics - in clear breach of the regulations, then we are looking at a national epidemic amounting to several million pounds. One would have thought that this would be of particular interest to you. Pursuing it would not only go a long way to restoring public confidence in the police, but would also be a career making case against a long standing epidemic of fraud that has netted millions for unscrupulous bailiffs. In light of the changes to council tax benefit, this problem is only going to get worse, and still you are content to neglect the issue, and essentially fob me off with the same bland corporate-speak as everyone else. If I'd wanted a scripted answer from a press officer, I'd have called your press officer.

My confidence in the impartiality and professionalism of the police has been utterly rocked by this. Had the police taken my complaint seriously in the first instance there would never have been a criminal case brought against me. There is no evidence whatsoever that the bailiffs visited me on the alleged dates and they have no record of the charges they scribbled on the proformas stuffed through my door at later dates. Only I am in possession of these documents. That is why the police do not see any evidence of fraud: - They have refused point blank to even look at it. They have not even been to my house to follow up on the evidence.

What we have here is 'policing by stats'. Prosecuting me is a nice easy hit that takes no great effort to secure a statistical win. The police will take the councils word that the bailiff fees are legitimate and will do no examination of their own, and with the deck stacked by the councils not even investigating complaints and referring complaints directly to the bailiff companies themselves, there is a high probability of an easy conviction. It seems that anything that may prove difficult or time consuming to investigate, that does not necessarily result in an easy statistic to chalk up on the blackboard, is deemed too much effort and not worth the trouble. Rather than serving the justice and serving the public, they can proudly lie to their superiors that another ruffian criminal has been punished for his misdeeds. For a public service that is rapidly losing respect and standing in the community, you would expect they would take more of an interest in protecting the public interest. If this is the shape of policing to come, I will not be in the least bit surprised if we start seeing such incidents turn violent - and you will have played your part in it.

I am am deeply offended, angry and disappointed by the police response in this matter and now I know they've have chosen sides, I will no longer view them as public servants, but lazy, predatory bandits who will opt for convenience over justice. The consequences of that will be theirs because times are coming where the police will need the co-operation and support of people like me. It won't be there. As for you, if your letter is anything to go by, you are as much a part of the problem.

Yours sincerely,

Peter North.

I don't for a minute expect it will penetrate the layers of institutional conditioning, nor will it prick her conscience since public officials have no souls anyway.  I bet this ghoulish thing doesn't even cast a reflection in the mirror.  However, this is essentially the result of getting in touch with the Avon & Somerset Police and Crime Commissioner.  The lesson here is that if you don't like the answer from the press officer-in-chief, then they will shunt it through to a different press officer, who will merely add a moderately different flavour of bullshit to it.

Somehow we're expected to pay them £100k a year or more for this drivel.   Given that this apologist crap is so standard now, I'm surprised there isn't a subroutine in Microsoft Word that essentially does the same job for the price of a liability order.  These people are scum sucking parasites and they are draining the vitality from civil society.  Eventually, there will be a price to pay.