Page 1 of 4

From: " "< . @gmail.com>

To: <confidential@sfo.gsi.gov.uk>
Cc: <melanie.onn.mp@parliament.uk>; <debt.advice@citizensadvice.org.uk>
Sent: 02 October 2018 13:23
Attach: B1-HB-and-CTB.pdf; 99a02636.doc; 98A04300.doc; Report 03B12862 summary.pdf; Page 6
Practice note 9.pdf
Subject: Local Government & Social Care Ombudsman (LGO) Serious fraud allegations

Dear Sir/Madam

Local Government & Social Care Ombudsman (LGO) Serious fraud allegations

My concerns are that the taxpayer is being defrauded by a significant amount of money each year by bogus
watchdog/Ombudsmen type organisations. I consider my allegations are well founded in respect of a
significant number of these organisations; for example the Local Government & Social Care Ombudsman
(LGO), Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO), Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO),
Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman (JACO) etc.

They are without doubt sham organisation put in place at the expense of the taxpayer to fake accountability. It
is not just the raiding of the public purse by countless millions of pounds each year needed to fund these; as
soon as you engage with the LGO in a complaint you increase the injustice suffered tenfold as the corruption
also impacts on those affected who have expended time and effort presenting all relevant material in the
expectation that their concerns will be properly addressed when in reality they stand no chance of having their
issues dealt with objectively. In many cases, people's lives are ruined, for example those caused severe
injustice who are not prepared to accept the sham decisions and pursue proper outcomes.

It is evident from briefly looking at a sample of complaint decisions on the LGO's website that the organisation
is outrageously biased in favour of Local Authorities. It is blatant particularly in those outcomes where the
complainant's grievance concern unnecessary recovery of Council Tax being taken against them through the
courts (those cases generating extra revenue for the council at the complainant's expense).

I have, to my detriment, been affected significantly for a protracted period from bias and corruption of the LGO
(and other aforementioned organisations). Those cases have become particularly involved and I therefore
don't at this stage propose even to attempt to summarise the issues. However, I have focussed on a case
involving Broxbourne Borough Council (22 June 2018) just as one example to support my claim that the LGO
is complicit in the oppressive handling of Council Tax paying residents by local authorities.

The Ombudsman's final decision (17 006 565)

https://www.lgo.org.uk/decisions/benefits-and-tax/council-tax/17-006-565

The Ombudsman found the Council was not at fault in continuing to seek payment of Council Tax via a
court application (imposing costs for the complainant) whilst the Council considered an application for Council
Tax Reduction and while waiting for the Tribunal’s decision.

The Ombudsman denied the complainant a fair outcome and effectively assisted the transfer of a sum from
the Complainant, which is believed to be £80.00 (the court costs), to Broxbourne Borough Council by
determining that the Council were not at fault in continuing enforcement through a liability order in the
complainant's particular circumstances.

The decision was unfair not only because the Council failed to act in accordance with a number of publications
providing guidance on "best practice" but it conflicted with its own previous decisions which set a precedent
that in cases where there were benefit issues outstanding a council should not pursue a court order.

Additionally the Ombudsman misrepresented the law to justify that Councils are under a legal duty to pursue
court orders whilst benefit claims are undecided. See relevant references to the incorrect statements in the
decision (emphasis added):

"The Council says it has a duty to continue collecting Council Tax and to continue with enforcement
action if it remains unpaid pending an appeal". (paragraph 15)

07/10/2018
 Page 2 of 4

"Council Tax regulations however impose a duty on councils to continue collecting Council Tax even
where it is in dispute". (unnumbered paragraph between paras 16 and 17)

"It may have helped Mr X if in response the Council explained the law places it under a duty to continue
collecting payments even while it considers Council Tax Reduction or awaits the decision of the Tribunal
on an appeal". (paragraph 20)

The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 referred to in the decision, allow billing
authorities discretion as to whether they apply to the court so are not required to by law. Regulation
34(1) states so far as is relevant the following (emphasis added):

"....the billing authority may, in accordance with paragraph (2), apply to a magistrates' court for an order
against the person by whom it is payable".

Given "best practice" guidance and historical LGO decisions (referred to later) it is in question why the
Ombudsman decided to distort the regulations to mislead potential readers of the decision that a billing
authority has no option in law than to continue collecting Council Tax even when it is in dispute. If the Council
wished to secure its position so it had a court order to enable it to recover the debt (if there was any) once the
dispute was over it was under an obligation to have done so without imposing costs. The judgment in R
(Nicolson) v Tottenham Magistrates [2015] EWHC 1252 (Admin), a High Court case involving Council Tax
summonses backs this up.

The court was bound to decide the matter of costs in accordance with the Regulations which included that if
the costs were permissible 'it was reasonable for the local authority to incur them' (Nicolson v Tottenham, para
34). Paragraph 51 of the judgment goes on to say, so far as is relevant, the following (emphasis added)

".... but there may be individual cases in which it would be open to the respondent to argue that the
costs were not reasonably incurred, for example, if it was not reasonable for the local authority to
take steps to enforce payment...."

It was clearly not reasonable that the Council took steps to enforce payment and consequently not reasonable
that it incurred the costs and should have itself borne them if wanting to secure its position.

Best practice guidance and past LGO decisions

There are a number of decisions finding fault with local authorities that pursue recovery while council tax
benefit claims are ongoing. The attached (Report 03B12862 summary.pdf) the Ombudsman said:

"I do not consider such action is necessary, fair or reasonable in every case. The council should take
into account the circumstances of the individual before taking such action. In my view a council should
not seek a liability order while a claim for council tax benefit is outstanding, and where the reason for
delay in assessing it is not attributable to the claimant".

The example on page 2 in the attached fact sheet (B1-HB-and-CTB.pdf) states following:

"Mr and Mrs M are housing association tenants claiming housing benefit and council tax benefit. Mr M is
seriously ill and his wife is his full-time carer. The council took over six months to re-assess their claim
after they reported a change of circumstances. During that time their council tax debt built up. At first the
council held back from taking action against them, but then, without checking whether the claim had
been decided, the council referred the case to court. When they received the summons Mr and Mrs M
went to an advice agency which made a complaint on their behalf. But the council ignored it and went
ahead with the court action. Mr and Mrs M received a liability order and then a letter from the bailiffs.
They also had a letter from their landlord about rent arrears. After the advice agency complained to us,
the council decided the claim, paid the benefit, withdrew the court action and costs, and paid £500

07/10/2018
 Page 3 of 4

compensation. We also asked the council to review its procedures to make sure it had proper systems
in place for suspending council tax recovery action while a benefit claim is being processed, and for
identifying complaints."

Two other relevant decisions attached (98A04300.doc and 99a02636.doc) are cases in which the
Ombudsman found fault with the respective councils for pursuing recovery whilst there were unsettled benefit
claims.

In respect of the publications providing guidance on best practice the Institute of Revenues, Rating and
Valuation (IRRV) has an article on its website entitled "Recovery Action and the outstanding Council Tax
Benefit claim" which is linked to below:

http://www.irrv.info/forums/InformationService/page_print.asp?Art_id=136

Also, a short entry is found in paragraph 2.3 of a publication of June 2013 by the Department for Communities
and Local Government entitled "Guidance to local councils on good practice in the collection of Council Tax
arrears", which states so far as is relevant, the following:

"....Local Authorities will want to consider the practicalities of proceeding with enforcement action
against individuals where there are outstanding claims for benefit or appeals already in the system".

Guidelines issued by the then Department Of Environment (DOE) "Council Tax: Practice Note No. 9 –
Recovery and enforcement" states the following at paragraph 3.11, see attached (Page 6 Practice note 9.pdf)

"A liability order may be made notwithstanding that the taxpayer is disputing the amount of council tax
benefit which has been awarded or the fact that council tax benefit has been disallowed. The billing
authority should, however, as a matter of best practice check that there is no outstanding benefit claim
and refrain from taking enforcement action where such bona fide benefit claims have been received and
are unresolved...."

The DOE guidance is likely to be the guidance referred to by Lord Henley – then Parliamentary Under-
Secretary of State for the DSS – in relation to a blocked amendment to the 1992 Local Government Finance
Act, which sought to prevent a liability order being issued unless the court was satisfied that the authority had
correctly determined whether there was an outstanding claim for council tax benefit. The amendment
(Amendment No. 164) was tabled as follows:

"No enforcement order shall be made to recover any sum under this Act unless the court is satisfied that
the authority has correctly determined whether there is an outstanding claim for council tax benefit in
respect of that sum".

Although the amendment was successfully blocked the exclusion of it was clearly not for the purpose of giving
local authorities the green light to process 'en masse' such cases through the court, but allow councils
discretion and filter-out vexatious claimants.

Lord Henley HL Deb 28 January 1992 vol 534 cc1203-44 (1227)

https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/lords/1992/jan/28/local-government-finance-bill-
1#S5LV0534P0_19920128_HOL_250

"Although I can appreciate and sympathise with the reason why the amendment was tabled, I can see
no reason for changing that position for the council tax. If such a change was made, I am afraid it would
leave the way open for taxpayers to avoid or delay their liability to pay the council tax by making bogus
claims for benefit and causing those claims to be delayed by failing to provide the correct information.
Most authorities will continue to act reasonably if approached by someone with an outstanding benefit
claim and would not continue their recovery process until the claim was settled. That is the advice which
has been given in a practice note issued by the Department of the Environment to all authorities on
enforcement of the community charge and will be reiterated in guidance on enforcement of the council
tax."

Conclusion

07/10/2018
 Page 4 of 4

Clearly the law does not prohibit the court granting an order if a billing authority applies for one whilst there are
outstanding claims for benefit or appeals. However, as it is evident from the above, the reason why the law
was not amended to prohibit the court doing so was because billing authorities were expected to act
reasonably under the discussed circumstances and to prevent abuse of the system. But the issue here is not
about the powers magistrates have or do not have once a complaint has made to the court; what matters is
that billing authorities have a duty to act in a fiduciary capacity and if they don't it is the Ombudsman's duty to
ensure they do.

The LGO is not expected to be funded by the taxpayer to deviously misrepresent the law in order to justify
assisting the council penalise a Councul Tax payer financially who takes the trouble to highlight
maladministration to the Ombudsman.

It appears from the early reports attached that the LGO once may have acted objectively and those
complainants affected by maladministration could have expected to have had their concerns dealt with fairly.
However, recent decisions show no evidence of the parties being given equal consideration by the
Ombudsman and there is no question that the LGO has deteriorated into a sham organisation which
effectively endorses billing authorities' mishandling of residents Council Tax accounts.

Yours sincerely

07/10/2018