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 blindeye 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? Theres 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 contractors 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 dont 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. Its 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 dont 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 councils 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 debtors premises or removed elsewhere. Though undoubtedly true and never disputed, regulation 45(4), when referred to in the provision under head H, makes clear Parliaments 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 Polices 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 communiqu 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 its 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 Ive 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