A toxic cocktail

On Friday I received a reply to my letter to South Gloucestershire Council.

In a word: bullshit.

As predicted Mrs Williams has upheld the charges for the phantom visits.  She has asked the bailiffs if they think they are wrong, and unsurprisingly, they don't think so.  This is akin with asking Mr JT Ripper if he's murdered any prostitutes lately.

It is clear they have no intention of mounting any kind of investigation. The word of their bailiffs suffices for them, and our masters have spoken.  There are some deep flaws in her assertions. Delicious though they are, I do not wish to publish my observations just yet as I may rely on them in court, and don't want to give the game away.

My message to Bristow & Sutor and SGC is that if you think this £42.50 is due, then by all means you are welcome to try collecting it. Mrs Williams has already admitted malpractice but has chosen to take no substantial corrective action. I wonder how a court will view this?

This is now entirely typical of our parasitic public sector, to such an extent that even our MP's have started to notice.  "Britain will face another scandal like Mid Staffs, in which hundreds of patients died needlessly, unless there is a cultural “revolution” (in the public sector).  These are the findings of the Public Administration select committee in a report released today, highlighting a culture of hostility, defensiveness and denial where complaints are concerned.  It is not limited to the NHS.

"As things are, most people believe there is no point in complaining. The shocking collapse of care at Mid-Staffs hospital should be a warning to the whole public sector that too many managers in public services are in denial about what their customers and their staff think about them."

MPs found that managers are often in denial about criticism of the services they are in charge of and the public believes there is little point in making complaints, which is creating a "toxic cocktail".

It is just as well that South Gloucestershire Council recovery department staff are not NHS administrators.  Were that so, their hands would now be dripping with blood.  There are people now pushing up daisies because of low ranking officials like "Mrs Williams", who in their arrogance, indifference and incompetence cannot possibly enterain the idea that they may be wrong.  Their approach to complaints is that if they stonewall for long enough, the plebs will simply go away. I won't. I will give them a taste of that "toxic cocktail". See you in court.

Feeling the love

I got mail this morning. South Gloucestershire Council has instructed Bristow & Sutor to "continue recovery action" for the sum of £42.50.  But Mrs Williams and the gang in South Glos Recovery department are bit thick. Rundle & Co went away empty handed last year, and so will Bristow & Sutor. Only a magistrate can force me to pay this money, and only after the police are involved. I wll make that whole spectacle cost them a lot more than £42.50 if I am forced to pay.  I have never paid fraudulent fees to organised crime organisations, and I am not about to start.

If South Gloucestershire Council thinks it's a good press to get the police to force a taxpayer to give into known fraudsters, then so be it.  It will cost them more than it costs me. What we see here is petty vindictiveness by SGC, knowing the police won't investigate this fraud, - and they know full well I am not going to pay without a fight, so this is essentially a council wasting taxpayers money on a vendetta - when they are in the wrong.

Bristow & Sutor: Fraudsters

Blurred lines in local media

Propaganda rags: Uncle Toms.

Thanks to further work by Jason Bailey of dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk, I am now satisfied, after some doubt, that the reformed bailiff fee schedule is legitimate.  This time my instincts were wrong.

In the course of checking the facts, I wrote to the editor of the Echo, Colin Channon, asking for clarification as to whether he had fact-checked these claims.  His reply was simply a copy-and-paste of the new fee schedule from god knows where (presumably a council website). I don't believe he has done the same degree of research I have in order to verify these fees, and if there was an inconsistency, I very much doubt he would have found it - or been bothered enough to look. These churnalists believe what they are told.

While we were on the subject, I challenged Channon on his use of the expression "council tax dodgers".  His reply was similarly glib...

"Dictionary definition for ‘dodger’: one who persistently evades a responsibility, such as tax dodger, draft dodger. If someone doesn’t pay a council tax, which is a responsibility, doesn’t that make them a dodger?"

The word "dodger" implies deliberate, premeditated (and persistent) evasion, which in my case is entirely correct since I do not feel any obligation to pay our idle parasites hard-working public servants. But in the case of so many (in the face of recent reforms) it is simply untrue. Not everyone is on a PAYE contract and not everyone is capable of managing Direct Debits - and cannot necessarily pay when the schedule says they must.

Further to this, councils have been passing on council tax "debt" to bailiffs as early as July for a first offence. Hardly persistent evasion. Their boilerplate corporate response is that they employ bailiffs "only as a last resort", which, as we know, is a fat lie. Our council's rapacious greed knows no boundaries.

Channon has used the word "dodger" as shorthand for council tax payers in arrears, and in so doing insults a great many of his readers who are simply struggling to pay. Such language makes The Echo appear to be the mouthpiece of our greedy councils. It is an ugly practice and it is lazy, especially if you have done any investigation into council tax enforcement and the unlawful behaviour of bailiffs. For a long time now, councils have been upholding fees for phantom visits while the police turn a blind eye, calling it a "civil matter". The very reason this blog exists.

I have previously remarked on how our local media has become an "Uncle Tom" to local government.  Now it seems the relationship is becoming official.  Newsquest, the parent company of The Echo is moving to sack a number of its editorial staff. It seems they are no longer needed now that the police are posting directly to local news websites.

Amanda Brodie, chairman of the CIOJ’s Professional Practices Board, described the practice as "wholly unacceptable". In a statement she said: “It is not the job of newspapers to be a mouthpiece for the police or any other body – their job is to hold them to account, not cosy up to them in this way. Channon by his negligence doesn't seem to think so.

Sealing the deal, we learn from Press Gazette that the Crewe Chronicle (Trinity Mirror) is considering sharing offices with the local council. Cheshire East council leader Michael Jones said: "I'm very happy to offer to the Crewe Chronicle team that - if they do want to be based somewhere we can find a place for them in the municipal buildings. We have got a radio station in there - I'm sure we can find space for them in there. We need our local paper to be vibrant and strong."

I'm sure they do, but for what purpose? Since one is the mouthpiece of the other, why not cut out the middle man? There has been much debate in recent years over the future of local media. The narrative is that they are dying and struggling to compete. For me, that day cannot come soon enough - when our lazy, privileged and wilfully ignorant local media withers on the vine, so that properly independent and honest players can enter the market.

This is, oddly, why I am not all that concerned by Leveson press-regulation.  It will not stop us from getting the truth from our media, since the media don't much care for the truth anyway. For that, we have fearless bloggers, and people like you who are willing to read them. If the legacy media wishes to regulate itself into oblivion, why on earth should we care?

Something untoward

Castle Point Council: Misleading the public?

Leaving aside the offensive tone of the Echo which calls those in council tax arrears "council tax dodgers", there is something a little fishy about this report.

Bailiffs are being scrapped in place of new enforcement agents as part of major changes being bought in for the way debts are collected from April 6. Under new Government regulations, enforcement agents will charge a debtor £75 on receiving a court order from the council to chase owed tax. They will then try to contact the person to either get payment in full or set up a payment arrangement. If they are unsuccessful and agents have to visit the debtor they will incur a further £235.

Assuming this procedure is correct, this effectively incentivises phantom visits. But we have only Castle Point Council's word for it since the Echo has clearly not done any work to verify these claims. I think the councils are lying, and local media is slavishly repeating these lies without checking the facts.

I can't find anything at all that says these changes to the law apply to council tax. The measures are part of a wider package of reforms which will implement Part 3 of the Tribunals, Courts & Enforcement Act 2007. But I can see no changes to The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992.

Even the good people at the Bailiff Help Forum seem in the dark on this one.  There is nothing we can see that repeals the present council tax regulation.  As you can see form the thread, this is not the first such report of its type.  I believe this to be part of a concerted campaign by councils to deceive the public.  They've been caught out on their current grubby little scam and now there is no profit in it, so now they shift the goalposts.

I am happy to test this in court this year if needs be.  If what I suspect is true, they cannot be allowed to get away with it. I have written to the editor of the Echo and Castle Point Council. We shall see what they say.

UPDATE: According to Jason Bailey at DWB, The £75 is a statutory fee. There is no longer the £42.50 fee. "The £75/£235 will most probably in the long term be retained by the council as it will be doing the work and sending the statutory notices. For he most part councils want to retain the £235 fee as well and collect what can be collected in a few visits."

In other words, if there is a revenue stream from punishing the poor, the council wants it.  In some respects, this is a win in that private goon squads like Rundle & Co will take a hit, but it is now much more expensive if you can't afford your council tax.

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.