Rossendales Bailiffs - Appeal Ref: CO 461/15

Response to this request is long overdue. By law, under all circumstances, Humberside Police should have responded by now (details). You can complain by requesting an internal review.

fFaudwAtch UK (Account suspended)

Dear Humberside Police,

Please disclose all recorded information in relation to the following correspondence, i.e., who is dealing with it (if anyone), when will it be responded to (if ever) etc., etc.

From: [fFaudwAtch UK]
To: PSBAdmin @humberside.pnn.police.uk
Cc: pcc @humberside.pnn.police.uk ; !enquiries
Sent: Monday, May 16, 2016
Subject: Re: Appeal against outcome of local resolution - Ref: CO 461/15

Dear Sir/Madam

Further to my 3rd May 2016 email, is there any information/update regarding the progress of this matter?

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

I think you should be informed that North East Lincolnshire Council has appointed Rossendales bailiffs to enforce the alleged outstanding Council Tax (see attached letter https://www.scribd.com/doc/312580559/Ros... ). The Council has this power only on account of being successful in hoodwinking the judge that it had been a legitimate approach to divert monies intended for the current year's account to another sum which it had agreed in writing was suspended whilst being disputed.

Although the schedule of fees referred to in the letter was not enclosed as stated, I believe those fees are likely to amount to £310, comprising a £75 compliance fee and £235 enforcement charge which when added to the unwarranted summons costs will amount to £430 – the sum which I will potentially be out of pocket.

If you refer to my 30 December 2015 email to Inspector Allan Harvey on this matter, my prediction has the makings of being very accurate (see quoted paragraphs):

"Action needs taking sooner rather than later to ensure that the immediate consequences of the fraud is remedied. This will not be achieved by having to complete complaint and subsequent appeal procedures which guarantee nothing at the end. The appropriate level of investigation can be evaluated after the immediate risk of the consequences of the crimes have been removed.

The consequences do not stop at the fraudulently obtained court cost. Unnecessary enforcement measures will follow, incurring additional costs which will accumulate over time to be sufficient in amount that the council will achieve its vindictive aim and be able to take insolvency, bankruptcy or custodial action."

It is not feasible that Rossendales will be successful in recovering any of this from me as the only option available to them is to take control of a vehicle as it is not obligatory to let a bailiff into your home. As I do not currently own a car that option is out. The Council is unable to take monies from my income because I have none whatsoever, only outgoings.

I see the only alternative available, after the likely failure of Rossendales, will be for the Council to apply to the court for committal and will predictably strengthen its case with the argument that I had reported the matter as a crime but the police would not investigate and so claim that Humberside police endorsed the council's actions. This would of course be a distortion because there was sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction against the Council which would have not been in doubt had the force investigated.

In anticipation of having to defend myself in court at a potential committal hearing I request that a letter is produced explaining that the reason why Humberside police did not investigate my allegations was not because there was no realistic prospect of conviction, but because the force has only finite resources which do not extend to investigating every crime or it had its hands tied by whatever restrictions are laid down by the government.

Yours faithfully,

fFaudwAtch UK

Information Compliance, Humberside Police

Thank you for your request for information.  If you are requesting
information under the Freedom of Information Act or the Environmental
Information Regulations you will receive a response within the statutory
20 working days.

We aim to respond to any other enquiries within 20 working days. Further
information on requesting information can be found on this [1]link.

 

Internet Email should not be treated as a secure means of communication.
To ensure regulatory compliance Humberside Police monitors all Internet
Email activity and content. This communication is intended for the
addressee(s) only. Unauthorised use or disclosure of the content may be
unlawful. If you are not a named addressee, you must not disclose, copy,
print, or in any other way use or rely on the data contained in this
transmission. If received in error you should notify the sender
immediately and delete this Email Humberside Police routinely checks
e-mails for computer viruses. However addressees are advised to conduct
their own virus checks of all e-mails, & any attachments). Opinions
expressed in this document may not be official policy. Thank you for your
co-operation. Humberside Police

References

Visible links
1. http://www.humberside.police.uk/your-rig...

fFaudwAtch UK (Account suspended)

Dear Information Compliance,

Response to this request is delayed. By law, Humberside Police should have responded by 14 July 2016.

Yours sincerely,

fFaudwAtch UK

Information Compliance, Humberside Police

Thank you for your request for information.  If you are requesting
information under the Freedom of Information Act or the Environmental
Information Regulations you will receive a response within the statutory
20 working days.

We aim to respond to any other enquiries within 20 working days. Further
information on requesting information can be found on this [1]link.

 

Internet Email should not be treated as a secure means of communication.
To ensure regulatory compliance Humberside Police monitors all Internet
Email activity and content. This communication is intended for the
addressee(s) only. Unauthorised use or disclosure of the content may be
unlawful. If you are not a named addressee, you must not disclose, copy,
print, or in any other way use or rely on the data contained in this
transmission. If received in error you should notify the sender
immediately and delete this Email Humberside Police routinely checks
e-mails for computer viruses. However addressees are advised to conduct
their own virus checks of all e-mails, & any attachments). Opinions
expressed in this document may not be official policy. Thank you for your
co-operation. Humberside Police

References

Visible links
1. http://www.humberside.police.uk/your-rig...

fFaudwAtch UK (Account suspended)

Dear Information Compliance,

If there is no response by 20 August 2016 I will assume that Humberside Police has no intention of replying and prefer that I escalate the matter to the Information Commissioner.

Yours sincerely,

fFaudwAtch UK

Information Compliance, Humberside Police

Thank you for your request for information.  If you are requesting
information under the Freedom of Information Act or the Environmental
Information Regulations you will receive a response within the statutory
20 working days.

We aim to respond to any other enquiries within 20 working days. Further
information on requesting information can be found on this [1]link.

 

Internet Email should not be treated as a secure means of communication.
To ensure regulatory compliance Humberside Police monitors all Internet
Email activity and content. This communication is intended for the
addressee(s) only. Unauthorised use or disclosure of the content may be
unlawful. If you are not a named addressee, you must not disclose, copy,
print, or in any other way use or rely on the data contained in this
transmission. If received in error you should notify the sender
immediately and delete this Email Humberside Police routinely checks
e-mails for computer viruses. However addressees are advised to conduct
their own virus checks of all e-mails, & any attachments). Opinions
expressed in this document may not be official policy. Thank you for your
co-operation. Humberside Police

References

Visible links
1. http://www.humberside.police.uk/your-rig...

Neil Gilliatt (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

Complaint sent to Information Commissioner's Office about Humberside Police failing to deal with my FoI request properly.

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire SK9 5AF

13 November 2016

Dear Sir/Madam

RE: INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF FOI REQUEST TO HUMBERSIDE POLICE – (No Reference)

I made a freedom of information request to Humberside Police (‘HP’) on 15 June 2016. Details can be found on the “what do they know” website at the following address:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/r...
“Rossendales Bailiffs - Appeal Ref: CO 461/15”

INTRODUCTION

A Council Tax liability order was made against me by District Judge Daniel Curtis at Grimsby Magistrate’s court, despite being alerted to the possibility that the Council’s Witness Statement intended to deceive the court. Subsequent to the court hearing, sufficient evidence was obtained to prove beyond all doubt that North East Lincolnshire Council (the ‘Council’) had in fact committed perjury; therefore the judge was complicit in the Council’s fraudulent application for liability order.

BACKGROUND

The Council [redact] obtained a liability order by committing [redact]. There was no debt owing, however, the Council [redact] engineered a non-payment scenario. The Police, Local Government Ombudsman and judges are complicit because all of them have looked the other way when the matter brought to their attention.

The negligence of the organisations has enabled the Council unhindered to make further [redact] demands by appointing its [redact] bailiff firm Rossendales to enforce the liability order that was obtained by [redact] to the court about money that is not owed.

The Council’s Revenues & Benefits service had not as you would have expected considered it a close shave to have avoided being the subject of a criminal investigation, but emboldened it to take further liberties with the law and seen it as a green light to continue taking steps to recover the sum. It can only reasonably be assumed that because it was ultimately the judge's responsibility for granting permission the council would deem it appropriate to exploit that decision regardless of being aware it was not entitled to the sum being pursued.

With regard to the unwarranted bailiff fees which have been added since, these are of no financial benefit to the council and it must be considered that Revenues & Benefits officers have allowed them to be added for nothing more than their own personal gratification.

Meanwhile, the [redact] charges continue increasing (currently around £540) and the bailiff firm does not intend to cease enforcement on account of the monies not being owed. It is likely when the bailiffs have to refer the case back to the Council on being unsuccessful, the Council will only have available to it under the fraudulently obtained order the option of committal. It is considered the police are complicit as its failure has enabled the Council to commit crime against a taxpayer by the fraudulent use of the Magistrates' court and should be held ultimately responsible for the circumstances which could realistically lead to false imprisonment.

REPORTING MATTER AS A CRIME TO [HUMBERSIDE] POLICE

A report containing the following was submitted to Humberside police on 8 November 2015:

“North East Lincolnshire Council produced a false witness statement (thereby committing perjury) with regards a council tax liability hearing at Grimsby Magistrates' Court. The District Judge (Daniel Curtis) was aware that the evidence surrounded a false and corrupt statement, but nevertheless granted the council a liability order to enforce a fraudulent sum which presently stands at £120.00. This sum is likely to increase if the council appoints its criminal firm of bailiffs, Rossendales. My allegations are that the council has committed perjury with the intent to fraudulently obtain money from me by the use of Grimsby Magistrates court and that Judge Daniel Curtis has perverted the course of justice by being complicit to that crime.”

After being advised on 11 November 2015 that the reported crime was not a Police matter but civil, it was made categorically clear that the person against whom the complaint was directed should be the Chief Constable so that any investigation would not be undertaken by the force itself. An extensive statement was produce on being advised to collate all evidence to support the allegations by another officer on 13 November. The main document, which referred to and listed around 30 others, was sent on 2 December but the supporting papers withheld until requested from the force. These papers were never asked for indicating that the police never intended seriously considering the evidence.

The matter was referred to the Professional Standards department to deal with as a complaint about the force’s decision that it was not a matter for the police. The resolving officer proceeded to deal with the matter by local resolution despite representations expressing that the matter was not suitable to be dealt with by that process. The submission was produced after referring to guidance (Key facts: local resolution) and included, among other reasons, PERJURY BEING PUNISHABLE AS AN OFFENCE WHETHER OCCURRING IN CRIMINAL OR CIVIL PROCEEDINGS. The final outcome of the local resolution process was sent on 13 January 16 and without any specific reference to the representations opposing that process.

The resolving officer evidently reiterated advice from the Force Solicitors which in respect of the issues raised being ‘appeal points that could be raised at any subsequent appeal hearings’, was based on an assumption.

What was later learned to be policy, rather than formed from the Crown Prosecution Service’s (CPS) Legal Guidance was that ‘Humberside Police do not investigate allegations of perjury unless a request to do so comes from the court themselves’. The CPS’ view in this matter is that the absence of a judge or magistrate’s recommendation that there should be a police investigation does not mean that there is no justification for one.

The outcome of the Local Resolution was appeal against on 25 January 2016 on the grounds principally that it was not considered that the complaint was suitable for Local Resolution which was made clear in a number of emails which were never addressed as are summarised below:

i) the request that the matter be escalated for the attention of the Chief Constable so that any investigation would not be conducted by the force itself in the hope of removing the 'sham' element which is associated with these matters.

ii) the suggestion that because of a conflict of interest which exists if Humberside police were to deal with this matter, another police force does so

iii) that an officer commits an offence under the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 by FAILING to exercise a power for the purpose of achieving the DETRIMENT of another person

iv) a test for establishing whether a complaint is suitable for “Local Resolution” or “Investigation” did not comply with IPCC guidance on handling complaints

v) the outcome being wrongly determined on advice obtained from the ‘Force Solicitors’, i.e., on the assumption that the issues ‘may be appeal points that could be raised at any subsequent appeal hearings’. Representations involving criminal law would not be considered appeal points that could be raised in those proceedings; they would involve civil proceedings challenging Council Tax administration.

Additional representations were sent on 3 May 2016 for consideration in the appeal once discovering the aforementioned CPS Legal Guidance, regarding the absence of a judge’s recommendation. The Police were also alerted on 16 May that the Council had appointed its bailiff contractor, Rossendales, to enforce the fraudulently obtained liability order (despite narrowly avoiding being criminally investigated).

The 8 June 2016 decision of the Appeal Body was not to uphold the matter (challengeable only in the High Court) on the basis that the correct decision was made to Locally Resolve the complaint. Evidently the representations concerning the Force Solicitor’s incorrect advice had been ignored as were all the others. Clearly the force has fallen over itself to protect the Council from the justice system as the evidence went far beyond what would be required to prove the perjury case.

DECISION TO LAY INFORMATION PURSUANT TO S.1 OF THE MAGISTRATES’ COURTS ACT 1980

An information in draft form was lodged with the Grimsby Magistrates' courts 1 March 2016 to request that it issue a summons for the purpose of bringing before the court the officer who wrongly stated perjury was not a matter for the police. The same had already been sent to Humberside police on 9 February 2016 for comment.

It was acknowledged that being a member of the public, up against a body having access to public money for legal representation, the chances of a successful outcome would be zero, no matter how concrete the evidence. Therefore taking the step of laying an information was a last resort, having been met with a lack of will on the part of public bodies funded by the taxpayer to deal with matters like this on their behalf. It was an essential move to get the serious matter of fraud and corruption out in the open and hopefully taken seriously.

It was also expressed to the court that to carry on any further would be completely insane as the potential financial loss would be far beyond my means and would in all probability result in the loss of my home. The suggestion was therefore to alternatively make all evidence available and the case referred to the CPS, which was a realistic proposal because, for example, a justices' clerk may refer a private prosecution to the CPS under s.7(4) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985.

The hearing was arranged for the application to commence criminal proceedings on 26 April 2016 apparently without any consideration for the suggestion that the justices' clerk refer the matter to the CPS. The Judge, after considering the evidence stated spuriously that the application, alleging an offence under s 26 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015, was vexatious and exercised discretion not to issue a summons for the purpose of bringing before the court the officer serving with Humberside police who had wrongly stated perjury was not a matter for the police.

HP’s unwillingness to accept responsibility for this matter has led to time consuming and fruitless disputes i.e., formal complaints to the Council, escalation of issues to the Local Government Ombudsman, police complaints, police appeals and entering into a private prosecution against the police for negligence. The Council has since instructed its bailiffs to pursue the recovery of a fraudulently engineered debt and imposed unwarranted enforcement fees. The time I have spent dealing with this matter since is incalculable.

FOI REQUEST – 15 JUNE 2016

HP was asked as below:

Dear Humberside Police,

Please disclose all recorded information in relation to the following correspondence, i.e., who is dealing with it (if anyone), when will it be responded to (if ever) etc., etc.

From: [fFaudwAtch UK]
To: PSBAdmin @humberside.pnn.police.uk
Cc: pcc @humberside.pnn.police.uk ; !enquiries
Sent: Monday, May 16, 2016
Subject: Re: Appeal against outcome of local resolution - Ref: CO 461/15

Dear Sir/Madam

Further to my 3rd May 2016 email, is there any information/update regarding the progress of this matter?

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

I think you should be informed that North East Lincolnshire Council has appointed Rossendales bailiffs to enforce the alleged outstanding Council Tax (see attached letter https://www.scribd.com/doc/312580559/Ros... ). The Council has this power only on account of being successful in hoodwinking the judge that it had been a legitimate approach to divert monies intended for the current year's account to another sum which it had agreed in writing was suspended whilst being disputed.

Although the schedule of fees referred to in the letter was not enclosed as stated, I believe those fees are likely to amount to £310, comprising a £75 compliance fee and £235 enforcement charge which when added to the unwarranted summons costs will amount to £430 – the sum which I will potentially be out of pocket.

If you refer to my 30 December 2015 email to Inspector Allan Harvey on this matter, my prediction has the makings of being very accurate (see quoted paragraphs):

"Action needs taking sooner rather than later to ensure that the immediate consequences of the fraud is remedied. This will not be achieved by having to complete complaint and subsequent appeal procedures which guarantee nothing at the end. The appropriate level of investigation can be evaluated after the immediate risk of the consequences of the crimes have been removed.

The consequences do not stop at the fraudulently obtained court cost. Unnecessary enforcement measures will follow, incurring additional costs which will accumulate over time to be sufficient in amount that the council will achieve its vindictive aim and be able to take insolvency, bankruptcy or custodial action."

It is not feasible that Rossendales will be successful in recovering any of this from me as the only option available to them is to take control of a vehicle as it is not obligatory to let a bailiff into your home. As I do not currently own a car that option is out. The Council is unable to take monies from my income because I have none whatsoever, only outgoings.

I see the only alternative available, after the likely failure of Rossendales, will be for the Council to apply to the court for committal and will predictably strengthen its case with the argument that I had reported the matter as a crime but the police would not investigate and so claim that Humberside police endorsed the council's actions. This would of course be a distortion because there was sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction against the Council which would have not been in doubt had the force investigated.

In anticipation of having to defend myself in court at a potential committal hearing I request that a letter is produced explaining that the reason why Humberside police did not investigate my allegations was not because there was no realistic prospect of conviction, but because the force has only finite resources which do not extend to investigating every crime or it had its hands tied by whatever restrictions are laid down by the government.

NO RESPONSE

HP had not responded by the 14 July 2016 deadline and on the 15 July I notified it about the delay which, except for an auto response, was never replied to.

I communicated on 13 August to HP that if it had not responded by 20 August 2016 I would assume it would have no intention of doing so and prefer that I escalate the matter to the Information Commissioner.

In essence, HP has not responded to any of the communications other than those which were computer generated

Yours sincerely

Looking for an EU Authority?

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

AskTheEU.org