Dear Stockton on Tees 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 4,099 Stockton on Tees residents have paid fraudulently demanded bailiff fees amounting to £100,425.50 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 Stockton on Tees Council or its bailiff contractors?

Yours faithfully,

Sacksen Molar

Dear FOI Requests,

It is not required to have a username and password to view documents on the site. I have no account and have accessed it without a problem.

However, the contents of the document have been copied and pasted below:

"Please find attached a recent report from the Department of Communities and Local Government entitled “Guidance to local councils on good practice in the collection of Council Tax arrears”.

I draw your attention to paragraph 5.8 which I think is acknowledgement by the Government that the police should be taking allegations seriously where fraudulent practices are reported:

“5.8 The Government consider that any fraudulent practices should be reported to the police as a criminal offence under the Fraud Act and that Local Authorities should terminate any contract with companies whose activities are proved fraudulent.

An update

The data relating to bailiff fees (Head H) which NELC has refused to release and been in dispute for more than 18 months has finally been disclosed. No explanation has been given why the estimated cost of £40k has no longer been a contributing factor for withholding the data.

I’ve enquired with the council, Information Commissioner and Tribunal and it is becoming increasingly clear that I will unlikely be told why the information has now been released.

The Information Commissioner has stated why they won’t explain which amounts to there being nothing in law obliging them to. The Tribunal regrets that “there is no further action the Tribunal can take given that a final decision has been reached” – my appeal was struck-out obviously on erroneous grounds. The Council claimed further investigation was made as soon as it was identified that other councils were able to supply the information. The reality is I had informed the council months before that it was possible, but it maintained the data was not held. I’m guessing the council disclosed it because subsequently my evidence might have been sent to NELC indirectly from the Tribunal or Information Commissioner.

The results are as I expected; the fee has been incurred by householders in hundreds of cases where goods had not been removed, and as such been charged to hike up debt to financially advantage the bailiff firm.

NELC’s bailiff contractor, Rossendales Schedule 5 “Head H” fees data

Period Total number where fee incurred Total number where fee paid Value of incurred fees based on statutory min. Fees paid based on statutory min.
2007-08 387 186 £9,481.50 £4,557
2008-09 241 201 £5,904.50 £4,924.50
2009-10 218 216 £5,341 £5,292
2010-11 162 159 £3,969 £3895.50
2011-12 185 169 £4,532.50 £4,140.50
2012-13 191 133 £4,679.50 £3,258.50
2013 - date 34 6 £833 £147
Totals 1,418 1,070 £34,741 £26,215

It is almost certain that the number of times goods were removed in the above cases will be insignificant and would expect – if any – to be in single figures if and when confirmed.

Over the period, and assuming goods had not been removed in any cases, the fee had been charged 1,418 times where it could not possibly have been lawful and was actually paid in well over a thousand instances by the person being pursued by bailiffs.

Schedule 5 “Head C” fees data “Attending with a vehicle”

The “Head H” figures for North East Lincolnshire are just the tip of the iceberg. The figures which I hope to have shortly relating to attendance fees are likely to boost the fraudulently demanded £35k substantially. It has been disclosed already that NELC has agreed set fees with Rossendales (£130) for attending with a vehicle with a view to removal of goods (where following the levy, goods are not removed). This is inappropriate particularly because legislation states: “reasonable costs and fees incurred”.

The council has also agreed set fees as a second element to what is the statutory “attending with a vehicle charge”. This is described as waiting time for which there is no provision in law and solely makes up a contractor’s hourly rate as it is over and above the £130 fee which itself includes an hourly rate as the council describes:

“For each half hour waiting time (not including the first hour which is covered within the attendance fee): £32.50

The only information obtained so far is the total number of cases sent to Rossendales incurring the “attendance fee” over a period covering 2009-10 to date. That figure is 2,803 which based on the current £130, relates to a value of £364.4k. Clear cut cases where the fee would categorically not be chargeable are currently being fought over and will hopefully be released. A handful of councils have been able to provide this data. However, it’s likely all 2,803 of those incurring the fee will have been overcharged in the way detailed in document ref, Fraudulent attend with vehicle.pdf, sent as attachment in email 8 February 2013.

The following table contains data disclosed over roughly a four year period from three local authorities. Incidentally the bailiff contractor in all three cases is Rossendales.

Schedule 5 “Head C” fees data Obtained for period 2009/10 - Date

Local Authority and bailiff contractor Total No where fee incurred Fee where agreed Value of total fees incurred No fee incurred on levy visit Value of fees incurred on levy visit Fee where agreed for
(Waiting time)
North Lincolnshire
Rossendales 863 £130 £112,190 383 £49,790 £70/hour
Lincoln City
Rossendales 1,188 £130 £154,440 554 £72,020 unknown
Mid Sussex District
Rossendales 1,103 £130 £143,390 667 £86,710 £65/hour
Totals 3,154 £410,020 1,604 £208,520

The table tells us – from aggregating data of all three councils – that on average, 50% of the cases charged the “van attendance” fee, incurred it in respect of the same visit where goods were levied (also incurring a fee). This as detailed in the document (ref Fraudulent attend with vehicle), will have been to make maximum gain for their employers.

From only three of more than 350 local authorities in England and Wales, the scale of the crime is put in perspective with councils demanding £208.5k from alleged debtors (for which they’re not lawfully entitled), over the short period in question.

It’s worth noting that there may be a number of councils opting to take tighter control over their contractors as indicated by South Gloucestershire Council. That authority, although charging the attendance fee 401 times over the four years has stated that "No Van fee" is charged unless a levy is already in place. If what they have stated is implemented then they’re playing by the book, however, this goes against what has been disclosed in the data supplied by the three sample authorities.

Additional Local Authorities supplying redemption (Head H) fees data

There have been a number of local authorities asked to supply Head H fees data, who on the whole have been able to supply it without the obstruction experienced with NELC.

The table below details the findings. Where the council supplied a breakdown, the data is itemised by bailiff company where more than one is contracted to the authority.

Local Authority and bailiff contractor Total number where fee incurred Value of incurred fees based on statutory min. Total number of times goods removed No of fees incurred in certain breach of law Value of fees incurred in certain breach of law
Fylde Borough
Rossendales 167 £4,091.50 0 167 £4,091.50
Ribble Valley Borough
Rossendales 76 £1,862 4 72 £1,764
Blaby District
Rossendales 8 £196 3 5 £122.5
South Ribble Borough
Jacobs 1,395 £34,177.50 0 1,395 £34,177.50
South Kesteven District
Jacobs
Rossendales
Bristow & Sutor 756
(286)
(381)
(89) £18,522
(£7,007)
(£9,334.50)
(£2,180.50) 5
(0)
(0)
(5) 751
(286)
(381)
(84) £18,399.50
(£7,007)
(£9,334.50)
(£2,058)
Lancaster City
Equita *
Rossendales 208 £5,096 1 207 £5,071.5
Hyndburn Borough
Jacobs
Rossendales
Rundle & Co * 164 £4,018 0 164 £4,018
Breckland District
Rossendales 464 £11,368 1 463 £11,343.50
Colchester Borough
Jacobs
Rossendales 2,001
1,517
484 £49,024.50
(£37,166.50)
(£11,858) 2
(0)
(2) 1,999
(1,517)
(482) £48,975.50
(£37,166.50)
(£11,809)
Mansfield District
Rossendales
Rundle & Co
Bristow & Sutor 1,570 £38,465 4 1,566 £38,367
Preston City
Rossendales 404 £9,898 0 404 £9,898
East Riding of Yorkshire
Newlyn
Rundle & Co * 2,092 £51,254 1 2,091 £51,229.50
Bassetlaw District
Jacobs
Rossendales
Bristow & Sutor 1,875
(1,081)
(172)
(622) £45,937.50
(£26,484.50)
(£4,214)
(£15,239) 1
(0)
(1)
(0) 1,874
(1,081)
(171)
(622) £45,913
(£26,484.50)
(£4,189.50)
(£15,239)
Stockton on Tees
Bristow & Sutor
Jacobs 4,109 £100,670.50 10 4,099 £100,425.50
Hastings Borough
Rossendales 238 £5,831 0 238 £5,831
Scarborough Borough
Bristow & Sutor
Dukes
Jacobs
Newlyn
Rossendales 2,951 £72,299.50 0 2,951 £72,299.50
Bradford City
Jacobs
Phoenix 1,341 £32,854.50 0 1,341 £32,854.50
Gedling Borough
Bristow & Sutor
Dukes
Rossendales 1,558 £38,171 19 1,539 £37,705.50
Wrexham
Jacobs
Rossendales
Excel 2,994
(1,552)
(168)
(1,274) £73,353
(£38,024)
(£4,116)
(£31,213) 9
(2)
(0)
(7) 2,985
(1,550)
(168)
(1,267) £73,132.50
(£37,975)
(£4,116)
(£31,041.50)
Cheshire West & Chester
Bristow & Sutor
Dukes
Jacobs 3,547 £86,901.50 24 3,523 £86,313.50
South Gloucestershire
Bristow & Sutor
Rundle & Co 942
(942)
(0) £23,079
7
935
£22,907.50

Totals 28,860 £707,070 91 28,769 £704,840.50
* It has been stated Rundle & Co and Equita do not apply the Head H fee (see following)

The above, for which the £0.7 million has been incurred in certain breach of law, represents only around 6% of local authorities in England and Wales. It would therefore not be unreasonable to estimate a figure of £11.75 million if all councils had submitted redemption fee data.

Results are pretty consistent. The majority of bailiff firms see the redemption fee as a bonus whenever levying and most councils raise no objection. However, the research has discovered some exceptions, i.e., an odd council has decided, as policy, not to charge the fee – as have one or two bailiff firms.

Lincoln City Council has an agreement with its bailiff contractor, Rossendales, not to apply the Head H fee. It joins Brighton & Hove along with Thurrock Borough Council to make up the three authorities discovered that do not allow its bailiff contractor to charge this fee.

In a slightly different scenario, Milton Keynes do apply the fee, but in accordance with the law.

Where an authority uses more than one bailiff firm it is worth noting those which have stated one but not the other of its contractors charge the fee.

Havant Borough Council use Equita and Ross and Roberts but have stated where Equita do not levy costs under schedule 5 (H), Ross & Roberts do, but are unable to split these out from other costs and fees for disclosure.

South Gloucestershire Council use two different bailiff firms for council tax but state Rundle & Co do not charge header H on any case, whilst its other contractor, Bristow & Sutor, quite liberally do.

The significance of this being the negligence on the part of the council if it allows one contractor to charge whilst at the same time does not question why its other bailiff firm has decided not to risk legal challenge.

Northampton Borough Council were found to be in a class of its own having Rundles & Co, Bristow & Sutor, Equita and Rossendales enforcing alleged council tax debt, with allegedly only Rossendales applying the fee. In the cases of Equita and Rundles & Co, the statement concurs with what other councils have said, however, to be convinced that Bristow & Sutor – with referrals totalling 10,296 over the period in question to have not incurred a redemption fee – is another matter.

To conclude, Swindon Borough Council, who contract Ross and Roberts, confirmed that they were unable to provide the data as the information could not be extracted from their computer records and further confirmed they were unable to provide the data for any of their Local Authority customers. "

Yours sincerely,

Sacksen Molar

Dear FOI Requests,

Thank you for your response indicating that no fees in relation to the Head H charge have been refunded.

I would like to ask on what bases had those charges raised under Head H been deemed to be legitimate and raised in accordance with the relevant enforcement regulations?

If the data is correct and 4,109 accounts had been charged where goods had only been removed on 10 occasions, then theoretically 4,099 of those fees would not be legitimate. The relevant enforcement regulations provide that the fee may be raised under circumstances where goods have been removed, i.e. where "the appropriate amount.....is paid or tendered to the authority.....and the goods shall be made available for collection by the debtor".

Yours sincerely,

Sacksen Molar

Dear FOI Requests,

Have received a response yet?

Yours sincerely,

Sacksen Molar

Dear FOI Requests,

"In response we would advise you that the charges raised under Head H were legitimate charges, raised in accordance with the relevant enforcement regulations."

Either the data relating to fees raised under head H is incorrect or Stockton on Tees Council has been given incorrect legal advice.

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 FOI Requests,

It has been stated stated that you have outlined that the Head H charges were raised in accordance with enforcement regulations, however, there is nothing backing up this statement.

It would be appreciated if Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council could support its statement that the Head H charges were raised in accordance with the law.

Yours sincerely,

Sacksen Molar

Dear FOI Requests,

It is stated in your 13 March 2014 email "that the charges raised under Head H were legitimate charges, raised in accordance with the relevant enforcement regulations".

They were clearly not raised in accordance with the relevant enforcement regulations. On the contrary, they were raised fraudulently and as such should be refunded by Stockton on Tees Council.

Yours sincerely,

Sacksen Molar