nelc no investigation into bailiff fraud
DESCRIPTION
Response to Fraud Unit's refusal to act on evidence of North East Lincolnshire Council abetting its bailiff contractor to defraud residents whilst enforcing alleged council tax debt.TRANSCRIPT
Re: Rossendales/North East Lincolnshire Council Fraud Allegations
In reference to your November 9, 2013 correspondence (see Annex A) and the reasons given for
not pursuing this matter, it appears to me that corruption must be rife within Humberside Police.
The evidence supplied the force has been indisputable and for the Economic Crime Unit to do
nothing would seem it (along with North East Lincolnshire Council) is party to the theft of £millions
from residents by Rossendales bailiffs.
One would ask why such widespread crime is allowed to go unchallenged and might begin
suspecting somewhere along the line, payment or benefit is being offered in exchange for a blind-
eye being turned in favour of these criminals. Either that, or perhaps the police are explicitly
instructed not to proceed with any investigation which may in any way interfere with tax collected
by the state. If the latter applies, then I would expect this acknowledging so issues I intend to raise
with the relevant government department will be better focused.
The Criminal Prosecution Service I believe is preoccupied with taking on cases that will, with
almost certainty, lead to successful prosecution. Reaching favourable conviction rate targets then,
are an obvious factor which would influence the cases taken on (or not), as well as cost
considerations for keeping within budgets.
The way its operation is run however, would seem at odds with what was stated on national
television by the deputy head of fraud at the CPS:
“People who commit fraud, in any walk of life, should know that the scale
and technicality of a case is no barrier to bringing it to justice. At the heart of any complex fraud is a simple notion of dishonesty which is something that we can all understand.
Whatever is behind why this theft is accepted, the question arises as to whether taxpayers are
being defrauded by Humberside police in respect of a force obviously picking and choosing which
laws are implemented.
Nothing in the responses indicates that the Economic Crime Unit has considered the evidence with
a view to investigating, only that there has been a preference not to, as is evident with the reasons
given.
Firstly it was contended that to prove fraud had taken place, it was necessary to demonstrate
dishonesty beyond reasonable doubt. The court of appeal case, R v Ghosh [1982] EWCA Crim 2,
was cited as the judgment defining dishonesty used in criminal prosecutions and was stated,
without justification, that it was viewed that the allegation did not meet those requirements. Does
this mean the function of the Crime Unit is not investigatory rather one acting solely on information
fed it and only that which is sufficiently complete that would wipe up a case with no further
enquiries?
There’s a sense that a standard “off the shelf” response has been given, possibly I would suspect,
not without some influence from the local authority who in turn would likely to have been taken in
by its bailiff contractor’s misinformation.
There is no obvious reason why the two stage test defined in the R v Ghosh case would fail. It was
detailed in the submitted evidence in regards applying the redemption charge that in the case of
Milton Keynes, it does apply the fee, but it must not be charged where no goods are removed, i.e.,
in accordance with the law. Lincoln City Council states it has an agreement with Rossendales
bailiff not to apply the Header H fee – therefore No Lincoln residents incur the charge. Other
authorities stated similar which would clearly signal to local authorities that the legality in applying
the charge was in question.
However, where it would be indefensible to have claimed ignorance of the issues is in cases where
it had been discovered an authority using more than one bailiff firm had disclosed, one, but not the
other of its contractors charge the fee. South Gloucestershire Council, Northampton and Havant
Borough Councils are examples of these.
The message that van attendance fees under Head C can not be applied unless goods have been
levied should have similarly been conveyed to authorities that don’t comply with the law by the
ones that do. When requested how many of the 400 imposed Van fees were applied on the same
visit as a levy, South Gloucestershire Council replied “Zero”, adding that a Van fee is NOT applied
unless a levy is already in place.
Again, where it would be indefensible to have claimed ignorance, Wrexham Borough Council when
asked how many of the 3,864 imposed Van fees were applied in the same circumstances, the
answer, in respect of 1,167 applied by one of its three bailiff contractors (Excel Enforcement), was:
“the amount would be zero as no Attendance to Remove fee is
applied on the same visit as the levy”.
Presumably, its two other contractors, Rossendales and Jacobs do apply Attendance to Remove
fees at the same time as levying (data withheld on costs grounds). The council therefore cannot
claim ignorance when it is clearly policy for one of its contractors to act in accordance with the law
by not applying the fee at the same time whilst its other two don't comply.
Although not detailed in the submitted documents, had there been preliminary enquiries made they
would have led to authorities contracting more than one bailiff firm having different levels agreed
with each.
One such authority is Kingston-upon-Hull, presently having three firms whose charges are agreed
in contracts with each bailiff company and vary from £120 to £167 for a “Van fee”. Those
companies are Equita, Rossendales and Jacobs; it is believed their standard charges for a van
attendance are £120, £130 and £167 respectively. It’s known that Central Bedfordshire Council
have, in respect of its three contractors, a spread of charges for this fee, where the highest is
around three and a half times the level of the lowest.
Digging further would reveal some local authorities having contracts with agreed set rates in
respect of “Van fees” which differ substantially between Council Tax recovery and Business Rates
for which expenditure incurred in both cases is identical. In light of the law providing “reasonable
costs and fees incurred”, it goes without saying that councils which allow this are encouraging their
contractors to break the law.
Reminded that the fee is in respect of attending with the view to remove goods (but where none
are taken), and the bailiff attends in regular transport, it is blatantly dishonest, which can be said
also in cases where the fee increases in line with the amount owed. However, where contractors
are permitted to add waiting time (neither a prescribed set fee nor reasonably incurred costs), there
is no doubt councils are abetting theft, especially in circumstances where it accepts each firm
applies different hourly rates for the same unlawful charge.
It seems beyond reasonable doubt that dishonesty lies at the heart of these contracts. Local
Authorities don’t appear lawfully permitted to profit from enforcement, as is implied by the
prescribed fees and those that specify "reasonable costs and fees incurred". It is required in law
that private firms to which council’s outsource enforcement must apply the same statutory scale of
fees as would the council if enforced in-house. Therefore the same Schedule of fees which provide
only for the local authority to cover costs, when in the hands of the contractor, stretches to paying
staff bonuses, keeping shareholders happy and creating millionaires.
A deeper look would also reveal that private firms working with the same fees schedule still turn
round healthy profits despite contracts obliging them to provide services additional to those listed in
the statutory fee schedule for which no payment is made. Dishonesty is pushed to the extreme
where local authorities, Harrow Borough Council for example, contractually obliges its bailiff firms
not only to provide extra services free of charge but extends the greed to demanding a percentage
of collected fees, thus breaking the law further in order to also profit the council.
It is beyond reasonable doubt that the councils are not ignorant to the fact that this element of
costs will have to be met dishonestly with inflated fees (in excess of what is reasonably incurred).
Similarly it is beyond reasonable doubt that councils will support their contractors imposing “Van
fees” inappropriately in the same way they permit redemption fees to be charged unlawfully.
Secondly, the matter of head C charges (attendance with a vehicle) was omitted in the response
and assuming was down either to apathy or more likely a misunderstanding of the issues. If the
latter, and comments were made in connection with both Head H and C charges, then to be clear it
was never disputed that to raise fees under head C, goods need physically removing and
understood that in fact goods are not removed.
However, under head H (goods redemption) there was offered, in the Evans v South Ribble
Borough Council case, a token endeavour to justify the view that no criminal offence was
committed. The opinion relied on the fact (apparently) that seized goods in the custody of the law
can either be left on the debtor’s premises or removed elsewhere. Though undoubtedly true and
never disputed, regulation 45(4), when referred to in the provision under head H, makes clear
Parliament’s intention was to refer to items removed, because of the phrase ending as follows:
“...and the goods shall be made available for collection by the debtor”.
Thirdly, by entrusting North East Lincolnshire Council itself to report any criminal wrongdoing by its
bailiffs, Humberside Police’s Economic Crime Unit has lost whatever shred of credibility it may
have held. There is obviously a refusal to accept that officers within local authorities (in the case of
NELC there is no doubt) are the most deceitful self interested, self serving corrupt species on the
planet.
Fourthly, the Police have decided it has no good grounds to believe that a criminal offence has
been committed, based (apparently) on guidance from the home office circular 47/2004. Apart from
the communiqué being obviously geared towards home office budget cuts, a force wishing to turn a
blind eye to any allegation of fraud could easily do so by fitting one or a number of get-out clauses
incorporated into the publication.
The home office is no less than abetting these firms to defraud the public by giving the body
responsible for preventing it, sole discretion to allow the criminals to continue without
consequence. To hold evidence of the extent to which Rossendales are defrauding the public, for
no challenge to be made, there must be a strong case against the officers allowing this, for
misconduct in public office and perverting the course of justice.
Finally, a generic response would not be complete without passing the book. Perhaps a little more
imaginative than simply stating “it’s a civil matter to be taken up with the local authority”, the advice
was to refer the DISPUTE (no longer FRAUD ALLEGATIONS) to the appropriate regulatory body.
There is no dispute surrounding the interpretation of the law. The law has and is being broken by
Rossendales, abetted by North East Lincolnshire Council and now Humberside Police. All three
then are clearly responsible for millions of pounds being defrauded from householders; mostly it
would seem who are struggling to pay their council tax.
It seems no reference number has been raised in connection with the reported crimes. There is no
suggestion either that concerns I’ve raised have been properly dealt with, and may for all I know
not even have gone through proper channels or officially recorded. To ensure that the matter does
not remain covered up, details will be forwarded for the attention of the relevant government
departments.
ANNEX A
Email correspondence detailing the reasons why Humberside Police are not pursuing an
investigation into this matter:
From: Humberside Police (Economic Crime Unit) To: Recipient Sent: November 9, 2013 Subject: RE: North East Lincolnshire council / Rossendales (RESTRICTED - MANAGEMENT)
I have considered your submission regarding allegations of criminal conspiracy between
North East Lincolnshire Council and Rossendales bailiffs.
To prove that a fraud offence has taken place, we need to demonstrate, beyond reasonable
doubt, that a dishonest act has occurred. The definition of dishonesty used in criminal
prosecutions has been laid out as per the case of R v Ghosh. I cannot see that your
allegation meets those requirements.
With regard to the Schedule 5 charges connected with distress - it appears that the bailiffs
do not have to physically remove the goods (Evans v South Ribble Borough Council 1992.)
I do not take the view that NELC are co-conspirators. Should they report any criminal
wrongdoing by bailiffs we will consider the case on its merits.
Before undertaking a Fraud investigation, the Police must have good grounds to believe
that a criminal offence has been committed (HO Circular 47/2004). I do not consider that to
be the case in this instance.
For these reasons, Humberside Police will not be pursuing an investigation into this matter.
My position is that this is more of a question of interpretation of the regulations as set out in
the Statutory Instruments that cover Council Tax Administration and Enforcement, and that
your dispute should be referred to the appropriate regulatory body.
Regards Detective Sergeant - Economic Crime Unit Major Crime Unit - Tackling Serious & Organised Crime : Supporting Investigations