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. Ive 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 wont 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. Im 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.

NELCs bailiff contractor, Rossendales Schedule 5 Head H fees data

Period

Total number where fee incurred 387 241 218 162 185 191 34 1,418

Total number where fee paid 186 201 216 159 169 133 6 1,070

Value of incurred fees based on statutory min. 9,481.50 5,904.50 5,341 3,969 4,532.50 4,679.50 833 34,741

Fees paid based on statutory min.

2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013 - date Totals

4,557 4,924.50 5,292 3895.50 4,140.50 3,258.50 147 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 contractors 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, its 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 863

Fee where agreed

Value of total fees incurred

No fee incurred on levy visit 383

Value of fees incurred on levy visit 49,790

Fee where agreed for (Waiting time) 70/hour

North Lincolnshire Rossendales Lincoln City Rossendales Mid Sussex District Rossendales Totals

130

112,190

1,188

130

154,440

554

72,020

unknown

1,103

130

143,390

667

86,710

65/hour

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 theyre not lawfully entitled), over the short period in question. Its 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 theyre 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 167

Value of incurred fees based on statutory min. 4,091.50

Total number of times goods removed 0

No of fees incurred in certain breach of law 167

Value of fees incurred in certain breach of law

Fylde Borough Rossendales Ribble Valley Borough Rossendales Blaby District Rossendales South Ribble Borough Jacobs South Kesteven District Jacobs Rossendales Bristow & Sutor Lancaster City Equita * Rossendales Hyndburn Borough Jacobs Rossendales Rundle & Co * Breckland District Rossendales Colchester Borough Jacobs Rossendales Mansfield District Rossendales Rundle & Co Bristow & Sutor Preston City Rossendales East Riding of Yorkshire Newlyn Rundle & Co * Bassetlaw District Jacobs Rossendales Bristow & Sutor

4,091.50

76

1,862

72

1,764

196

122.5

1,395

34,177.50

1,395

34,177.50

756 (286) (381) (89) 208

18,522 (7,007) (9,334.50) (2,180.50) 5,096

5 (0) (0) (5) 1

751 (286) (381) (84) 207

18,399.50 (7,007) (9,334.50) (2,058) 5,071.5

164

4,018

164

4,018

464

11,368

463

11,343.50

2,001 1,517 484 1,570

49,024.50 (37,166.50) (11,858) 38,465

2 (0) (2) 4

1,999 (1,517) (482) 1,566

48,975.50 (37,166.50) (11,809) 38,367

404

9,898

404

9,898

2,092

51,254

2,091

51,229.50

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 Hastings Borough Rossendales Scarborough Borough Bristow & Sutor Dukes Jacobs Newlyn Rossendales Bradford City Jacobs Phoenix Gedling Borough Bristow & Sutor Dukes Rossendales Wrexham Jacobs Rossendales Excel Cheshire West & Chester Bristow & Sutor Dukes Jacobs

4,109

100,670.50

10

4,099

100,425.50

238

5,831

238

5,831

2,951

72,299.50

2,951

72,299.50

1,341

32,854.50

1,341

32,854.50

1,558

38,171

19

1,539

37,705.50

2,994 (1,552) (168) (1,274) 3,547

73,353 (38,024) (4,116) (31,213) 86,901.50

9 (2) (0) (7) 24

2,985 (1,550) (168) (1,267) 3,523

73,132.50 (37,975) (4,116) (31,041.50) 86,313.50

South Gloucestershire
Bristow & Sutor Rundle & Co Totals

942 (942) (0) 28,860

23,079

935

22,907.50

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.