Dear South Gloucestershire Council,

I believe the document in the link is (or makes up part of) submitted evidence to a police fraud department:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/155399034/NELC...

There is evidence within that document to show potentially 935 South Gloucestershire residents have paid fraudulently demanded bailiff fees amounting to £22,907.50 over approximately a 4 year period.

Please supply under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 the recorded number of fees, to which the data relates, which have been refunded to the debtor by South Gloucestershire Council or its bailiff contractor?

Yours faithfully,

Sacksen Molar

Dear Louise Stevens,

Response to this request is delayed. By law, South Gloucestershire Council should normally have responded by 24 March 2014 which was extended to 28 March 2014.

Yours sincerely,

Sacksen Molar

Dear Louise Stevens,

Your response:

"Bristow and Sutor have provided that they are unable to search for Head H fee refunds, but are confident that none have been made.

They state that they do not charge any fees fraudulently, so therefore if anything has been refunded it has not been because it was charged fraudulently."

Please don't just rely on the response from your bailiff contractor. It is clearly in its interest to say that they do not charge any fees fraudulently.

The data in the report states that 935 fees were incurred to a minimum value of £22,907.50 where no goods had been removed.

Please read the following:

Page 10, paragraph 48 of a Local Government Ombudsman's report into complaint about bailiff fees:

http://www.lgo.org.uk/GetAsset.aspx?id=f...

"Head H fee

48. I note the bailiffs charged a ‘redemption fee’ of £24.50 under Head H of Schedule 5 in respect of one of the vehicles on the 2005 liability order. This fee was removed when the Council established the car did not belong to Mrs Smith. I welcome this action. But the Head H fee should not have been applied on the facts of this case: the goods were not ‘made available for collection by the debtor’ as they were never removed. This was maladministration."

You can tell from the Government proposals (page 10) to amend legislation what the fee was for:

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/4679144/COUN...

"viii) the introduction of a fee maximum of 5% of the amount of the liability order for advertising costs where a sale does not take place because the debt has been paid and the goods have been returned to the debtor.

A fee maximum was accepted in principle, but it was pointed out that for small debts this would not cover the costs of advertising. Therefore, we intend to amend secondary legislation with effect from 1 April 1998 setting a fee of £20 or actual costs incurred up to a maximum of 5% of the liability order, whichever is the greater."

Yours sincerely,

Sacksen Molar

Dear Louise Stevens,

Does Cheshire South Gloucestershire Council have a response to the
issues raised in the 8 May 2014 email?

Yours sincerely,

Sacksen Molar