Distribution of correspondence (North East Lincolnshire Council)

fFaudwAtch UK (Account suspended) made this Freedom of Information request to The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman

This request has been closed to new correspondence from the public body. Contact us if you think it ought be re-opened.

The request was partially successful.

fFaudwAtch UK (Account suspended)

Dear Local Government Ombudsmen,

I would like the LGO to disclose who or what department dealt with the correspondence below:

From: fFaudwAtch
To: "Hanmer, Peter"; Res - Customer Services"
Cc: A.Hobley @coinweb.lgo.org.uk ; Humberside police
Sent: 27 June 2016
Attach: Re_ Application to State a Case - Grimsby Magistrates' Court.eml; R (on the application of Reverend Nicolson) v Tottenham Magistrates.doc; 20130208 [fFaudwAtch].doc; T - S & L Order Feb 14 2013.pdf
Subject: Re: False statement to defraud through council tax liability application

Dear Mr Hanmer

It won't come as any surprise that I am completely dissatisfied with your response and consider it wholly unacceptable. Though I anticipated the council's dealing with the matter would be a sham, that makes it no less acceptable.

Of course, you provide no evidence whatsoever to support your decision because it would be impossible to do so as you are contending, without any grounds, the concrete evidence provided you which is not only beyond reasonable doubt but beyond all doubt.

The decision is simply indefensible and the fact that the guilty parties have been protected by the process is evident that the council is corrupt, with the responsibility for the corruption lying with the Monitoring Officer, Tony Maione and Chief executive, Rob Walsh.

It is the role of the Council's Monitoring Officer to report on matters he believes are, or are likely to be illegal and is responsible to ensure that the Council, its Officers and elected members maintain the highest standards of conduct. Clearly by turning a blind eye in this matter he has failed in discharging his statutory duty, causing not only gross injustice to me as the taxpayer affected by continual harassment of officers pursuing a vendetta, but has also resulted in damaging the reputation of the Council.

Officers should not, but are being allowed to abuse their positions in pursuit of personal vendettas, costing hundreds of thousands of pounds of taxpayers money, over a relatively insignificant sum which in any event has been criminally engineered as a debt that is not owed by those officers purely for their own perverse satisfaction. There is no place within a local authority for individuals of this kind and it is of paramount importance that when such practices are highlighted, the person within the council with responsibility acts on the information by dismissing those guilty and has the matter reported to the police.

SEPARATE BUT RELATED ISSUES

There is another failure of the Monitoring Officer discharging his statutory duty, which until now has not been dealt with, but nevertheless needs investigating as it has had a material impact on the present issues. The matter relates to 2013 when Rob Walsh, as Monitoring Officer was the person responsible for ensuring that the Council's decision making was within the law.

BACKGROUND

Grimsby Magistrates Court had been obstructing the progress of an application to state a case for an appeal to the high court in the matter of NELC's application for a council tax liability order. It was looking unlikely that the court would produce the document as was required for the case to continue because of the failure to cooperate.

In line with pre-action protocol for a claim for mandatory order, alternative remedies were suggested in an email to the Justices' Clerk with the council copied in on 6 February 2013 (see attached). In the case of the council, the remedy suggested was to apply to the Magistrates court under section 82 of the Local Government Act 2003 to either quash the liability order for £60 obtained on the 2nd November 2012, or apply for a lesser amount than that for which the original order was made that was equal to the sum that had already been paid (in respect of reasonable costs).

On 8 February 2013 (also attached) the council replied stating it was not prepared to apply to the Magistrates Court to quash the liability order as it claimed it had been correctly obtained.

I disputed this in a letter dated 14 February 2013 (attached) on the grounds that the application should have ceased when the aggregate of the sum outstanding and an amount equal to the costs reasonably incurred by the authority was paid. In any event, the letter dated 5 February 2013 attached the email (6 February 2013), pointed out that the court issued a liability order where there was no evidence on which the Magistrates could have found their decision. Consequently, one of the questions in law asked in the application was whether the costs being disputed as unreasonable should have been awarded by the court without evidence from the council to support them.

We now know that they shouldn't have; it was unlawful to award costs without proof of how they had been arrived at. This has been confirmed in the case between Tottenham Magistrates and the Reverend Paul Nicolson (see case attached). It was therefore incorrect for the council to state in its letter of 8 February 2013 that the liability order had been correctly obtained (See para 61 in R (Nicolson) v Tottenham Magistrates [2015] EWHC 1252 (Admin), attached):

" 61. This application for judicial review of the decision taken by the Magistrates must therefore succeed. I was told that since the hearing the order for costs against the Claimant has been withdrawn, but that does not render the proceedings academic; as I have said, it raises issues of wider public importance. Had the order not been withdrawn, I would have quashed it. Since it has been withdrawn, I will declare that the order was unlawful, because:

i) the Magistrates did not have sufficient relevant information before them to reach a proper judicial determination of whether the costs claimed represented costs reasonably incurred by the Council in obtaining the liability order; "

Moreover, the council has since produced a calculation which proves that expenditure it was claiming was not actually incurred by the council in respect of my case. It is evident from the breakdown that those costs were attributable to activities such as officers who engaged with customers (telephone calls etc) to negotiate payment arrangements and to monitor them, and therefore completely irrelevant to my case and unlawfully claimed.

It was the person appointed Monitoring Officer at that time who was responsible for the decision made not to apply to the Magistrates court as suggested in the pre-action protocol as informed in the 8 February 2013 letter on the basis that the liability order had been correctly obtained.

CONSEQUENCES

This failure to apply lawful and proportionate decision making, hence not taking the correct remedy has led to years of injustice as it has enabled the Council to misallocate payment to the sum subject to appeal when payments have clearly been intended for the year’s council tax account which was current when paid. Having balances outstanding for different years and the opportunity that has given the council to engineer payment arrears, this has led to recovery being taken through the court each year since with further costs added in the proceedings considered here. That in turn has led to time consuming and fruitless disputes i.e., formal complaints, escalation of issues to the LGO, police, police appeals and entering into a private prosecution against the police for negligence by improperly exercising police powers under Section 26 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015.

OBJECTIVE

I would like in addition to having a proper response, with names of those involved in the investigation and findings properly documented, that this correspondence serves as a formal complaint about the Chief Executive, Monitoring Officer and all others involved in the investigation process. Naturally as my complaint alleges irregularity, my expectation is that in accordance with the Council's 'Fraud Response Plan' the matter is referred to the Audit, Risk, Insurance and Corporate Fraud team immediately on receipt, despite those who may be referred the matter being some of the officers (elected members) who are the complaint's focus.

Yours faithfully,

fFaudwAtch UK

Foi Officer, The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman

This is to acknowledge receipt of your email. If you are making a request for information, you should get an acknowledgement from us within the next 2-3 days with a reference number and a date by which we will respond to your request. Please note, however, that this address is only for use in relation to requests for information made under the Freedom of Information Act and subject access requests made under the Data Protection Act. If your email is in relation to a new complaint please follow this link to a complaint form<http://www.lgo.org.uk/forms/ShowForm.asp...> or call 0300 061 0614 to speak to one of our Advisers, as the FOI Officer cannot deal with your complaint.

NOTICE - This message contains information intended only for the use of the addressee named above. If you have received this message in error please advise us at once and do not make any use of the information.

Foi Officer, The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman

Dear fFaudwAtch UK

This is not information we hold. I cannot tell you who dealt with correspondence not addressed to us.

Yours sincerely

Hilary Pook
Information & Records Manager | DL: 0330 403 4734 |
Local Government Ombudsman's office |
www.lgo.org.uk |

show quoted sections

fFaudwAtch UK (Account suspended)

Dear Foi Officer,

The LGO was sent the correspondence because of its negligence in dealing with a serious matter which has allowed NELC to continue engaging in criminal activity.

The LGO might want to reconsider its decision knowing its error in dealing with the complaint has now led to more serious consequences.

Yours sincerely,

fFaudwAtch UK

Foi Officer, The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman

This is to acknowledge receipt of your email. If you are making a request for information, you should get an acknowledgement from us within the next 2-3 days with a reference number and a date by which we will respond to your request. Please note, however, that this address is only for use in relation to requests for information made under the Freedom of Information Act and subject access requests made under the Data Protection Act. If your email is in relation to a new complaint please follow this link to a complaint form<http://www.lgo.org.uk/forms/ShowForm.asp...> or call 0300 061 0614 to speak to one of our Advisers, as the FOI Officer cannot deal with your complaint.

NOTICE - This message contains information intended only for the use of the addressee named above. If you have received this message in error please advise us at once and do not make any use of the information.

katie left an annotation ()

I know this is old but they may not have known as n e lincs have several fake websites
I believe lgo preston office is one the staff involved are p lewis j burns m waddy a thackery a hovington and somebody chappell. All either fake or in on it i recieved still am extremely bad service off them i said id go threw anotherdept of the lgo to which i got a very demaning reply i structing on what to do i ignored this obviously and took pen to paper its safer the amount of lying going between shared emails

katie left an annotation ()

JUST LETTING YOU AND ANYONE ELSE WHO I HOPE SEES THIS THIS IS A FAKE WHAT DO THEY KNOW SITE! MY SOCIETY ITS CALLED its ran by the councils and a site called git-hub thay build sites with (codes) something to do with repositries subsidary sites after blocking you getting to any genuine site so chances are all of you on here havent had your real complaint even near a genuine complaint department!! they answer you on here i urve each an everyone one of you to check via a different method example write or phone alternate numbers to ones.provided an report it to what do they know and anyone else you can action forfraud ect----------- check out git hub seems lot of .gov use it to mske us look an feel like fools there all fake !! Moj lgo ect shocking they even hack your childs phone!!!!
Katie

Looking for an EU Authority?

You can request documents directly from EU Institutions at our sister site AskTheEU.org . Find out more .

AskTheEU.org