• Welcome to the LegalBeagles Consumer and Legal Forum.
    Please Register to get the most out of the forum. Registration is free and only needs a username and email address.
    REGISTER
    Please do not post your full name, reference numbers or any identifiable details on the forum.

Misallocating payments and ignoring email to exploit Magistrates court costs

Collapse
Loading...
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: Misallocating payments and ignoring email to exploit Magistrates court costs

    The issues regarding payment misallocation have happened again and have been summonsed for non-payment when in fact my account has been up to date at all times.

    Going to court shortly. The council has had its chances as I've let them know on two previous occasions it happened; this time they can go through the embarrassment of being made to look negligent in front of the judge.

    From: outlawlgo
    To: grimsby magistrates court list
    Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2015
    Subject: Grounds of Appeal - Council Tax Liability Order Hearing

    Dear court listing officer

    Will you please acknowledge receipt of this email and ensure that the three attachments are seen by the Legal Advisor and JPs for a Council Tax Liability Order hearing on 2 October 2015.

    I will be attending to appear before the bench. I request that on the court dismissing the complaint that the court, under the provision of section 64(1)(b) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980, make an order as to costs as it thinks just and reasonable.

    Your sincerely

    outlawlgo
    Attached documents:

    Defendant's Grounds of Appeal

    Case stated (draft)

    R (Nicolson) v Tottenham Magistrates [2015] EWHC 1252 (Admin)

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Misallocating payments and ignoring email to exploit Magistrates court costs

      The Council's representations for liability hearing on 30 October 2015:

      Witness Statement

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Misallocating payments and ignoring email to exploit Magistrates court costs

        Ledt's hope the magistrates haven't been "got at"

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Misallocating payments and ignoring email to exploit Magistrates court costs

          So, reading the Council's statement it is neither signed nor does it state who the witness is. Section 9 of the Criminal Justice Act provides that amongst other things a statement must be signed by the witness to be admissible, or providing all parties agree to use the unsigned statement then it can also be admissible - obviously this can be overruled subject to statute law but I am not aware of any.

          Something for you to raise in court or write to the Council objecting the admissibility of the Witness Statement, if you so wish.
          If you have a question about the voluntary termination process, please read this guide first, as it should have all the answers you need. Please do not hijack another person's thread as I will not respond to you
          - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
          LEGAL DISCLAIMER
          Please be aware that this is a public forum and is therefore accessible to anyone. The content I post on this forum is not intended to be legal advice nor does it establish any client-lawyer type relationship between you and me. Therefore any use of my content is at your own risk and I cannot be held responsible in any way. It is always recommended that you seek independent legal advice.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Misallocating payments and ignoring email to exploit Magistrates court costs

            Originally posted by R0b View Post
            So, reading the Council's statement it is neither signed nor does it state who the witness is. Section 9 of the Criminal Justice Act provides that amongst other things a statement must be signed by the witness to be admissible, or providing all parties agree to use the unsigned statement then it can also be admissible - obviously this can be overruled subject to statute law but I am not aware of any.

            Something for you to raise in court or write to the Council objecting the admissibility of the Witness Statement, if you so wish.
            Thanks. That's useful to know. The document is signed (and states who the witness is) on the original. Personal details have been redacted.

            There is however, a very serious concern raised by the content which I believe could implicate the council on a matter of perjury.

            - - - Updated - - -

            Originally posted by bizzybob View Post
            Ledt's hope the magistrates haven't been "got at"
            A judge is on this case.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Misallocating payments and ignoring email to exploit Magistrates court costs

              The council tax liability hearing is set for tomorrow afternoon.

              Supplementary Representations were submitted last minute (early this morning) only because a substantial amount of research was necessary from nineteenth century case law.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Misallocating payments and ignoring email to exploit Magistrates court costs

                The district judge, Daniel Curtis is an unashamed fraud (and I am prepared to stand by that statement).

                Initially I was lulled into a false sense of security when at the initial hearing this man seemed to be someone with integrity as he showed fairness in allowing the council time to respond to the representations which I had only completed and submitted the night before the council tax Liability hearing on 1 October 2015. I naively thought that this judge would consider the submissions on their merits, i.e that the representations would be viewed in an unbiased way.

                This was not the case and the judge happened to be as corrupt as all the other parasites to whom the government pay taxpayers' money for the purposes of oppressing.

                He was obviously instructed to find in the Council's favour or else forfeit his six figure salary. I could easily have made a rash decision and posted here that the judge was incompetent, but that on reflection would have underestimated his intelligence. He hasn't attained the position of district judge by being as stupid and knowledge-less of the law as he made out today; he obviously knows what he is doing and is being more than adequately remunerated for it by the taxpayer.

                This judge is not incompetent, he knew exactly what his aims were and therefore corrupt 'lacking in objectivity and very pro-prosecution that made a fair trial almost out of the question'.
                Last edited by outlawlgo; 30th October 2015, 19:13:PM.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Misallocating payments and ignoring email to exploit Magistrates court costs

                  Originally posted by outlawlgo View Post
                  ....There is however, a very serious concern raised by the content which I believe could implicate the council on a matter of perjury....
                  The content in paragraphs 7, 68-70 and 73 of the Council’s Witness Statement is cause to suspect that there was a deliberate intent to deceive the court.

                  7. At this juncture it is important to point out that the defendant had a further amount of £60.00 outstanding in regards costs relating to a Liability order application granted on the 2nd November 2012.
                  .....

                  68. The Council is aware that the defendant has taken matters further with regards to disputing the £60.00 costs incurred from November 2012.

                  69. Correspondence received from the defendant as of 20th November 2013 stated that he had withdrawn his application for the Judicial review of the costs (NELC12)

                  70. Given this the Council no longer held action in attempting to recover the outstanding amount.

                  71. Thus in October 2014 when the defendant made a non-specific payment the amount was allocated to his costs until the defendant contacted the Council and made his election clear

                  72. An appropriation of a payment cannot be inferred from an intention in the mind of the debtor un-communicated to the creditor. It can only be inferred from circumstances known to both parties. Leeson V Leeson 1936 K.B156 (NELC13).

                  73. As of the letter from the Defendant regarding his withdrawal of the Judicial review North East Lincolnshire Council had no further reason to believe that the costs were being disputed and the allocation of unspecified amounts was made in accordance with Peters V Anderson.

                  74. It is on these authorities that North East Lincolnshire Council would state that the monies, have, due to the defendants non-election or expression, been allocated correctly and that North East Lincolnshire Council, have adhered to the Local Government Finance Act 1992 and the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 in issuing recovery notices and applying for a Liability Order.

                  75. This statement is true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
                  The Council had every reason to believe that the costs were still being disputed....there is absolutely no doubt about that. The council have produced exhibit NELC12 from this posts, #171 and #172, (that is obvious). It has stated to the court that the "Council had no further reason to believe that the costs were being disputed".

                  Exhibit NELC12 (only obtained yesterday) which the council refers to in para 73 of its Witness Statement (see above) can be confirmed beyond reasonable doubt to have been copied and pasted from another thread on this forum (which records every relevant communication) and confirms beyond reasonable doubt that the appeal has not been withdrawn. The council knows (it monitors that thread) that I still dispute those costs therefore would not intend appropriating monies to that sum.
                  Last edited by outlawlgo; 3rd November 2015, 10:22:AM.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Misallocating payments and ignoring email to exploit Magistrates court costs

                    Judicial complaint submitted about the judge's conduct for the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office to ignore.

                    Judicial Conduct
                    Investigations Office

                    Complaint form

                    Date form submitted 7 November 2015

                    Background to case


                    North East Lincs Council (the 'Claimant') erroneously applied for a liability order for non-payment of council tax due to misallocating monies to a sum that had arisen from a previous year’s summons costs, which were disputed and appealed to the High Court. That sum was suspended pending the court's decision; therefore no payments in respect of the current liability were ever overdue. The case (High Court) is yet to be determined so the costs still suspended; therefore, under no circumstances was it a sum to which the Claimant could legitimately allocate payment.

                    Myself (the "Defendant") submitted extensive evidence to support that i) the appeal (as alleged) had never been withdrawn and so the suspension of costs from the account never lifted, ii) payments were in any event inferred by the circumstances to be appropriated to the current liability, iii) it was inconceivable that the summons costs as applied on making complaint could have been incurred by the claimant, as per the Claimant’s breakdown.

                    The Claimant made a statement (material in the proceedings) which he knew to be false, to the effect that the appeal challenging the costs had been withdrawn. Indisputable evidence was submitted to support why the statement was untrue and why the Claimant could not have believed it to have been true. The Defendant's suspicion that the statement was made with deliberate intent to deceive the court was made clear in those representations.

                    Professional Misconduct

                    The judge was unwilling to listen to, accept or understand any evidence which didn't fit in with the pre-determined outcome (to accept the false statement to justify granting the order). It was sensed throughout the hearing that the judge pretended to be out of his depth as a strategy for denying evidence that might, if considered, defeat the Claimant's argument and make granting the order more difficult to justify. His ineptitude was almost certainly put on for show; therefore a description far more accurate would be of 'Professional Misconduct' than that of incompetence.

                    Criminal Allegations


                    The judge was so lacking in objectivity and obviously pro-prosecution that had an unsighted person walked into the courtroom he would have almost certainly mistaken him as the Claimant's barrister, albeit one grasping at straws, raising irrelevant matters with the intention of hoodwinking the bench. It can therefore be stated unreservedly that there had been not even a hint of a fair hearing.

                    There seems no doubt that the judge had acted with intent to pervert the course of justice as he had before him indisputable evidence that a false and corrupt statement had been made. Granting an order therefore made him complicit in the Claimant's criminal actions that sought to exploit a complaint to the court for the purposes of defrauding the Defendant with an attached claim of costs.

                    Inappropriate Comments / Discrimination

                    His manner (the judge) was antagonistic and belittling and although there was no retaliation to speak of, the provocation was such that a conflict could have easily arisen. It is easily seen how such an approach might be used to distract attention from the case in order to discredit someone or simply to goad someone who the judge took a personal dislike to. If such incidents have occurred, which is difficult to see how they could not have, based upon my experience, I would fully support anyone who has fallen victim who might now, for example be on a charge for contempt of court, as a consequence of the provocation.

                    His concluding comments in so far as they can be recalled were that he’d listened for half an hour to an outburst of political diatribe for which only 5 minutes made any sense. This can only be put down to his inability (or demonstration thereof) to understand the representations which had in any event been submitted as detailed written evidence. The diatribe referred to can only reasonably be put down to a couple of issues raised. A reference to the misconduct of the Justices Clerk for the Humber and South Yorkshire which is considered so serious as to warrant answering charges of misconduct in public office is one. Secondly, a matter which the Claimant relied on was contended as being misleading evidence (additional to the false statement).

                    As for the ‘political’ reference, it was merely pointed out that the issues were of general public importance as they could detrimentally affect significant numbers and more so since government reforms introduced changes to council tax benefits. These issues were material to the case and did not exceed a brief mention as the judge made it plain that they were not matters worthy of consideration, presumably because they were not favourable to the outcome that had obviously been pre-determined in the interest of the Claimant. Again everything relevant to these points was set out in the written evidence.

                    His comments were far from the most tactful thing to say to someone, who whilst over the period of time that the judge will have received over half a million pounds of taxpayer's money, has had no remuneration whatsoever for consistently and voluntarily dedicating around 15 hours a day, 7 days a week to matters concerning the wholesale fraud, which it has become obvious is endorsed by people appointed in a judicial capacity.

                    The judge was acting beyond his authority when again in his belittling manner his interrogation turned to an irrelevant matter concerning the number of payments, in what sum those payments were made and the method chosen for paying council tax instalments. It irked him, so much so, that he enquired if a bank account was held and why payments weren’t made by standing order like everyone else. It wasn’t for the court to lay blame elsewhere for the Claimant exploiting its council tax processing system as a means of defrauding taxpayers.

                    Unashamed bias was displayed again when the judge referred to previous maladministration, similarly in respect of misallocated payments, for which 27 days was taken by the Claimant to respond and resolve the matter, by which time reminders and a summons were wrongly issued. The facts were distorted out of all recognition and portrayed in the courtroom to be the Defendant’s fault for the Claimant’s gross error. The judge was again noticeably irked to the point that he was motivated to make a spurious statement which was that the Claimant, as a consequence, had a right to demand subsequent year’s liability up-front thus removing the statutory instalment entitlement.

                    Misuse of Judicial Powers


                    Not withstanding his reliance on a statement which he knew was false, the judge acted outside his powers by granting the order. The regulations governing council tax liability do not give the court authority to make an order when the defendant has proved that there is no outstanding debt. No discretion in such cases is given to impose a penalty (especially not for one’s own perverse gratification) which is what the judge did in this case by allowing the application and granting costs, based on his own opinion differing from the Defendant’s about how, and in what manner bills are paid.

                    Neither is the court allowed discretion in the amount of costs it orders. The regulations restrict the level so that no more than the expenditure incurred by the applicant in respect of instituting the complaint is rechargeable to the defendant. The breakdown contained indisputable evidence that the vast majority of the costs claimed were not incurred by the Claimant in respect of instituting the complaint in the Defendant’s case. The judge approved the level from a brief glance of the breakdown. It was then explained to him that the costs itemised referred largely to council resources dealing with enquiries, rescheduling and monitoring payment plans etc. and subsidising bad debt for which none could be attributable to the Defendant’s summons. A detailed analysis in this regard had in any event been submitted in the written evidence.

                    The order was not made because there was a legal obligation, but for what appeared to be the assistance that imposing a financial penalty might provide in coercing the Defendant into conceding and making payments in line with the Claimant's preferred method.

                    There was a substantial amount of evidence before the court. Had due process followed and the representations considered objectively it is inconceivable that the judge would have determined the case in the way he did. He seemed to view his role as a disciplinarian rather than someone who was duty bound to deliver a decision based on the legal arguments that were before him.

                    It is appreciated that a complaint cannot consider the judge's decision (that is now a police matter), but this is not a complaint about that, rather it concerns the failure to carry out his duties in an unbiased way and for that reason unfit to sit on the bench in a court of law and should no longer be allowed to for the sake of future potential victims of the judicial system.

                    Annex A to C


                    The misconduct is of such a serious nature that should the concerns raised be misjudged and no action taken as a consequence, the justice system’s reputation will be seriously at stake. That is why material has been included in Annex A to C which demonstrates, for want of a better phrase, that it is beyond reasonable doubt, that the Defendant has been stitched-up by what points to a criminal conspiracy between the Claimant and the court.

                    Annex A


                    Contained here is an exhibit identified as “NELC12”. In its Witness Statement, the Claimant refers to the letters in that exhibit to justify having ‘no further reason to believe that the costs were being disputed’ because the Defendant had ‘withdrawn his application for the Judicial review of the costs’.

                    It is not only clear from the content of the Defendant’s letter dated 20 November 2013 that the application to state a case regarding costs had not been withdrawn (only the claim for a mandatory order), but the letter was not a copy of the original. It is beyond all reasonable doubt that the Claimant had sourced those letters from a public forum, the same forum which it had sourced the contents of another of its exhibits (NELC11).

                    Annex B


                    The letters contained in Annex A had been redacted and matched the entries that were posted on the public forum as seen in Annex B [posts, #171 and #172]. The forum is the only place from which those letters could be sourced in that redacted form. The characteristics of the letters which the Claimant submitted to the court were identical to the forum posts.

                    Clearly the Claimant had not sought the original letters and had presumably for convenience consulted the public forum on which all letters connected with the matter (albeit redacted) where conveniently in one place. It is a reasonably assumption that if on this occasion the Claimant consulted the forum to produce its exhibit, it would have done so subsequently where further updates on that forum continued providing evidence that the case stated was still very much being pursued. That would only reinforce the established fact and so does not matter whether the Claimant did or did not continued monitoring the forum, as the crux of the matter is that the post (Annex A) from which the content was sourced was accompanied with some commentary which reinforced the matter in itself. Crucially the commentary ended with this sentence: ‘the next move will be to arrange to appear before the Magistrates' Court to agree terms of a recognizance.’

                    Annex C


                    The exhibit (NELC1) is the Defendant’s 2015/16 council tax bill (demand notice) which displays unambiguously at the bottom of the document that an amount of £60.00 is a sum which is subject to Court Proceedings. The same has been included on each of the Defendant’s demand notices ever since the appeal, by way of a case stated, was instituted.

                    Allegations of Judicial Misconduct


                    For the avoidance of doubt, this does not constitute an appeal of the court’s decision, it is a complaint made in accordance with the Judicial Conduct (Judicial and other office holders) Rules 2014 about the judge’s conduct on several counts which are set out in detail above and itemised as follows:

                    i) Professional Misconduct
                    ii) Criminal Allegations
                    iii) Inappropriate Comments / Discrimination
                    iv) Misuse of Judicial Powers

                    I confirm that the information I have provided is correct

                    Judicial Conduct and Investigations Office, Royal Courts of Justice,
                    Queens Building, Strand, London WC2A 2LL
                    Last edited by outlawlgo; 8th November 2015, 08:04:AM.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Misallocating payments and ignoring email to exploit Magistrates court costs

                      With it pretty much confirmed that North East Lincolnshire Council has Grimsby Magistrates' court on its side, the need to tread with more caution is obvious. Who knows to what devious depths it will sink in trying to obtain its fraudulently secured costs.

                      The email sent earlier should put a stop to any plans it might have of misallocating money as it did last time. In the event it appoints its bailiff contractor, that has been taken care of too. It has only one option available, which is imprisonment, but that will only cost the taxpayer and obtain nothing?

                      From: me
                      To: counciltax@nelincs.gov.uk
                      Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2015
                      Subject: Appropriation of Payments

                      Dear Sir/Madam

                      Re: Council Tax Account – 550xzzzxyz


                      I have two instalments remaining of £91.00 (£182.00 in total) in respect of my 2015/16 council tax liability.

                      It is noted from viewing NELC's website that my account shows a total sum of £302.00.

                      £120.00 therefore does not relate to my current year's council tax liability. £60.00 of that sum relates to summons costs from November 2012 which are suspended pending a high court appeal; the remaining £60.00 relates to a sum which NELC obtained in an attached claim of costs in a fraudulent application for liability order.

                      I am writing to make it categorically clear that any payment I make on my account (whether [or not] that sum matches an instalment amount) my express election is for that payment to be allocated to the current year's liability. This applies also to future year's, unless there are express instructions (in writing) to the contrary.

                      Also for the avoidance of doubt, should NELC decide upon instructing its bailiff contractor to attempt collecting any of the fraudulently obtained summons costs, NELC does not have my permission to allocate any element of payment I make on my account in respect of sums accruing in fees and charges.

                      I require acknowledgement that NELC fully understands these instructions.

                      Yours sincerely

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Misallocating payments and ignoring email to exploit Magistrates court costs

                        Humberside police are up to their old tricks and classifying fraud as a civil matter.

                        From: Morley, Gillian 9614
                        To: 'outlawlgo'
                        Sent: November 11, 2015
                        Subject: Crime Reporting Submission

                        Mr outlawlgo

                        With regards to your report that was submitted to Humberside Police on 08/11/2015 as follows:

                        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.

                        Please be advised that this is not a Police matter and is civil which I suggest you seek further advice from a solicitor/legal advisor.

                        Command Hub
                        Humberside Police
                        There needs to be a refusal by a high ranking officer to get a complaint about an officer's conduct outside an internal investigation.

                        From: outlawlgo
                        To: Morley, Gillian 9614
                        Sent: November 12, 2015
                        Subject: Re: Crime Reporting Submission

                        Dear Ms Morley

                        I am in disbelief that Humberside police have arrived at the conclusion that fraud is not a police matter. I have not heard such an absurd statement since the force said the same with regards bailiff firms defrauding council taxpayers.

                        Your suggestion that I am put to the expense of enriching the legal profession when I am in any event contributing to fund the police out of the very tax which the council wishes to defraud from me has some irony to it.

                        I am left obviously with no option than to submit a complaint about whoever within the force made this decision. However, I would much prefer the person against whom I make the complaint to be the Chief Constable so that any investigation will not be conducted by the force itself in the hope of removing the 'sham' element which is associated with these matters. Therefore, please escalate this matter for the attention of the Chief Constable.

                        Yours sincerely
                        Last edited by outlawlgo; 12th November 2015, 10:00:AM.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Misallocating payments and ignoring email to exploit Magistrates court costs

                          Am dealing with these atm [MENTION=8136]outlawlgo[/MENTION] will update u next week
                          crazy council ( as in local council,NELC ) as a member of the public, i don't get mad, i get even

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Misallocating payments and ignoring email to exploit Magistrates court costs

                            Hi.

                            Am literaly deal with tjis exact point with blunderside at the mo.

                            Its criminal not civil. The police just dont understand the accounting mecenisums used and the parts of the lgfa that make it an offence. Add the internal accounting procedures around customer accounts. Its been very complex to prove, but am there. I have found some connections to the property things i mentioned to u and one off the officers we both dealt with.
                            crazy council ( as in local council,NELC ) as a member of the public, i don't get mad, i get even

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Misallocating payments and ignoring email to exploit Magistrates court costs

                              Originally posted by Crazy council View Post
                              ...Its been very complex to prove, but am there. I have found some connections to the property things i mentioned to u and one off the officers we both dealt with.
                              Has that person had a job description change – to Debt Manager or something like that?

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Misallocating payments and ignoring email to exploit Magistrates court costs

                                I dont meen nts or rw. I meen that copper. Who wrote to you and met me. I will email u later make u laugh
                                crazy council ( as in local council,NELC ) as a member of the public, i don't get mad, i get even

                                Comment

                                View our Terms and Conditions

                                LegalBeagles Group uses cookies to enhance your browsing experience and to create a secure and effective website. By using this website, you are consenting to such use.To find out more and learn how to manage cookies please read our Cookie and Privacy Policy.

                                If you would like to opt in, or out, of receiving news and marketing from LegalBeagles Group Ltd you can amend your settings at any time here.


                                If you would like to cancel your registration please Contact Us. We will delete your user details on request, however, any previously posted user content will remain on the site with your username removed and 'Guest' inserted.
                                Working...
                                X