Local Government Ombudsman - Complaint Form

17 October 2018
What do you think the body did wrong?

1. North East Lincolnshire Council (NELC) was asked to investigate its enforcement
contractor, Jacobs, in relation to one of its bailiff enforcement visits on 17 July 2018 (see
attached papers).

2. NELC failed to investigate the matter objectively; it was an obvious sham exercise to
vindicate the bailiff's actions as is evident from the outcome letter dated 8 August 2018.

3. A second complaint was made on 19 August 2018 alleging criminal negligence because the
investigating officer's actions amounted to a betrayal of trust and violation of the laws which
impose a duty on a public officer, or an officer acting as such, to act impartially, fairly and
without discrimination or bias. In the context of the issues raised in the complaint, the 8
August decision categorically demonstrates that the officer wilfully neglected to act as
required thus wilfully misconducting himself to a degree as to amount to an abuse of the
public's trust without reasonable excuse or justification.

4. It was expressly stated in the 19 August submission that the criminal issues in respect of the
way the initial complaint was dealt with was a separate concern (the initial matter was
escalated to stage 2 of the Council's complaints process on 22 August). This was reiterated
in an email on 22 August in response to a letter of the same day from the council because
the council stated that the two matters would be considered in one investigation. The
council's letter also confirmed that the initial complaint had been escalated to stage 2.

5. The council proceeded to consider the two matters in one investigation. Its findings (final
stage) were set out in a report dated 27 September (see attached papers).

Final stage decision

6. Firstly, contrary to the reviews findings, the letter was not left in accordance with the
relevant regulations for the following reasons (which were comprehensively set out in my
representations):
 i) I do have my own letterbox. The regulations cited by the council provides for ‘where
there is no letterbox’.

ii) The regulations refer exclusively to the statutory 'Notice of enforcement'. The letter
revealing the nature of the bailiff's visit through the envelope window and
threatening the removal of goods was left on 10 July 2018 and was not the 'Notice of
enforcement'. The 'Notice of enforcement' was delivered by Royal Mail dated 22
May 2018.

6. Secondly, the review did not take into account the concerns raised about the breach of the
Ministry of Justice’s guidance which sets out the minimum standards for enforcement
agents (paragraph 52). The letter had been left in a place accessible to neighbours and
anyone who visited the building over a period of two days, however, it could potentially
have been much longer because I was out of the country for a total seven weeks in the past
three months.

7. The fact that the letter did come to my attention is irrelevant in respect of defending the
council's (Jacobs) action. It is only by chance that I was in the country at the time, otherwise
discovering it may have taken much longer so potentially the letter could have got into the
wrong hands or remained accessible to passers by for weeks. Additionally, if the council are
implying that I have not been caused injustice because I discovered the letter by chance then
this would be misconceived. Firstly because I have potentially all my neighbours and
anyone who visited the building being under the impression that I have debt issues (which is
untrue) and being pursued for payment and secondly, I have been caused a substantial
amount of unnecessary work dealing with the issues with the council and now having to
escalate the concerns to the Ombudsman.

8. The investigating officer did not investigate the alleged failure of Mr Smith to act
impartially etc., on the misconceived basis that she was satisfied that he correctly concluded
not to uphold the complaint having followed appropriate steps and having reached a
balanced and reasonable conclusion. My representations which are reinforced in my second
submission dated 19 August make a sound case for why Mr Smith's dealing with complaints
needs to be scrutinised.
9. Notwithstanding the above the investigating officer brought up irrelevant factors which
were not only irrelevant but were also mostly untrue. The below quoted from the 2nd stage
outcome refers to me being known to the council which by now after the amount of
maladministration, fraud, perjury and criminal misconduct I have had to deal with over
many years is likely to be true. However, the reference to my spurious and cavalier
comments is laughable given the conclusive evidence I have to back up my allegations:

"The Complainant is known to the Council. Spurious and cavalier comments have been
made against professionals and officers, both within the Council and other organisations.

These comments make a veiled reference to criminal activity and allege professional
misconduct and have been formally considered by the Monitoring Officer, The
Monitoring Officer has determined that the allegations are unfounded and therefore
there will not be any further enquiry. As the complainant has elected to include other
organisations within the distribution of these allegations, the Council will trust them to
consider as they deem appropriate".

10. All the officers who endorsed the above in the decision are considered to be public office
holders, so I have formally raised the issue as one of misconduct (Misfeasance may be more
appropriate) in public office, i.e., in respect of the Chief Executive, Monitoring and Finance
Officers and the Investigating Officer. I trust the Ombudsman will recommend to the
relevant authority the appropriate offence.

11. The investigating officer sought to back up her assertions by exploiting an alleged
Monitoring Officer's decision that the allegations I had made were unfounded in order to
support her decision not to make any further enquiry. However, this is pretty much
meaningless because in the first paragraph (quote in para 9 above) the investigating officer
refers falsely in general to spurious and cavalier comments I have made and it does not get
any more specific in the second. Therefore, it is unclear which allegations are being referred
to because the statements could refer to any of my allegations made over the protracted
period of time I have had the misfortune to have been affected by official error and cover-
ups which have been responsible for me having to institute numerous complaints.

12. I suspect that the report has been carefully constructed so as not to identify specifically any
criminal allegations I have made in order to cloud the issue thus misleading anyone who
 may subsequently have the job of adjudicating on the matter. For example the Monitoring
Officer was responsible for an investigation carried out by NELC's Corporate Fraud team
which concluded with it allegedly finding no evidence that any fraudulent activity had taken
place. However, this was a previous matter relating to 2015 involving NELC presenting
perjured evidence to the court to persuade the judge that it was entitled to allocate payment
to a previous year's account which was in dispute leaving the in-year’s account that should
have been paid in default. The council was caught red-handed yet NELC's Corporate Fraud
team, police, etc., allegedly found no evidence of dishonesty even though the documented
proof is conclusive.

13. It is worth noting that in response to written communications to Humberside police and
NELC in respect of the bogus investigation and the absence of any evidence supporting their
decision that they both point blank refused to correspond further on the issue. Neither had
the slightest evidence to support their decisions despite the law requiring them to.
Coincidentally Humberside police's Head of Crime who took responsibility for the sham
investigation was moved out of the firing line and seconded to Humberside Fire & Rescue.
It is also telling that the Monitoring Officer for NELC who was responsible for the sham
investigation on its side was seconded to Engie, a private company that undertakes major
contracts for the Council. I escalated a complaint about this to the Ombudsman on 11
August 2016 and the details are comprehensively set out in the complaint papers therefore it
is unnecessary to go over the same ground here.

14. It may be that the reference in NELC's final outcome to the Monitoring Officer and his
determination that my allegations were unfounded refers to the current Monitoring Officer
and might therefore be referring to the statement I made about NELC's auditor contractor,
KPMG, and its involvement in a sham investigation which helpfully covered up fraud for
the council. Then again, the council may have been referring to the current Monitoring
Officer's predecessor, but this is academic anyway because none of it is relevant to the
complaint, but for the record, these allegations were not unfounded as the Finance Officer,
Sharon Wroot, will be able to confirm (re, email to KPMG, 13 June 2016).

15. Additionally the refusal to deal with the second complaint has enabled NELC to avoid
dealing with further compelling evidence (notwithstanding the perjured evidence) proving
that it had no justification for applying for a Council Tax liability order and there was no
legal basis whatsoever to do so. Its refusal has also enabled NELC to avoid dealing with fact
 that its actions oppose the majority of billing authorities which deal with payments
responsibly, i.e., they seek to allocate them in a way that mitigates the risk of the customer
incurring unnecessary recovery action in respect of the current financial year.

16. The Investigating Officer has completely ignored in her final outcome the issue surrounding
the document sent by NELC revealing through the envelope it was a court summons for
non-payment. This strongly points to NELC playing the system, i.e., dealing with
complaints from the perspective of covering itself should the matter be escalated to the
Ombudsman. The Investigating Officer has presumably weighed up what would be
considered by the Ombudsman to be out of jurisdiction and not even thought it worthy of
addressing because she anticipated this issue would be. If the complaint was properly dealt
with, all relevant factors would have been considered, even those that the Investigating
Officer speculated would be ruled out for investigating by the Ombudsman; the matter was a
complaint to NELC at that stage so the Ombudsman's remit was irrelevant.

17. NELC clearly deals with complaints without any regard to the individual affected but does
so in a contrived way purposely to provide an outcome designed to stand up to scrutiny if
taken further; thus neither fairness nor objectivity are factors considered relevant to the
Investigating Officer. All that matters is the outcome focuses on issues which NELC can
reasonably rely on being those falling outside the Ombudsman's remit, thus securing the
best chance of the complaint not being upheld.

18. If the Investigating Officer's decision to omit the summons for consideration was on the
basis that the Ombudsman would dismiss it for investigation if escalated to him, then the
point had been completely missed. Despite it being sent over a year ago (normally
considered time barred) the relevance of highlighting the issue on receiving the first stage
outcome, was to demonstrated the inconsistency, bias and a lack of objectivity in the
Investigating Officer's approach to dealing with the matter. This was relevant in respect of
both the complaint of 8 and 19 August 2018 and comprehensively set out in the attached
papers.

How has this affected you?

19. NELC's actions (or those it is responsible for) has put me to a considerable amount of
trouble and inconvenience dealing with a complaint involving two stages. Escalating it to
 the Ombudsman has compounded the injustice; the cause of which has been wholly down to
the investigating officers denying fault and dealing with the concerns in a way that amounts
to attempting to cover up maladministration.

20. I have almost certainly all my immediate neighbours being falsely under the impression that
I am a tax dodger and possibly neighbours further afield if those who have seen the letter are
inclined to gossip. I do not consider It is not fair that NELC has caused me potentially to be
thought of as a tax dodger because of its inability to properly manage its contractors.

What do you think the body should do to put things right?

21. NELC should write to everyone who can reasonably be considered to have seen the bailiff's
letter who will because of where it was left be aware that I am being pursued by debt
collector's/bailiffs. The letter should explain that I dispute the money being demanded and
any impression they will be under that I am a tax dodger for example is false. Ideally the
letter should also explain that the reason why bailiffs are wrongly pursuing me is because
NELC persuaded the court by lying and presenting an argument with no legal basis
whatsoever to grant an order that I owed money which I most definitely do not.

22. Steps need to be taken to ensure that all enforcement contractors are aware of the need to
adhere to the Ministry of Justice’s guidance which sets out the minimum standards for
enforcement agents (work carried out on the council's behalf is the council's responsibility).
Contractors should take care not to disclose the purpose of their visit to anyone other than
the debtor, for example by not displaying warnings in red bold text which are visible
through the envelope window and/or leaving these types of letters in places accessible to
others. The matter is not confined to just my case because the contractor, Jacobs, admits to
advising its bailiffs to leave letters in places accessible to persons other than the intended
recipient when they are unable to gain access to the appropriate letterbox.

23. The concerns raised in the 19 August 2018 complaint should also be investigated by NELC
as the representations I have made clearly demand that they are. This case demonstrates why
taking a complainant's concerns seriously can be crucial and why carrying out investigations
impartially, fairly and without discrimination or bias is not a trivial matter if they are not
dealt with that way. The failure to do so has not just been the cause of expense and severe
 injustice to myself over a protracted period, but has impacted hugely on public resources –
easily running into tens of thousands of pounds.

24. Given that I made a reasonable attempt to post a letter through the locked security door and
could not do so I would like NELC to provide the video evidence it has relied on to uphold
the complaint so can see for myself that it clearly shows that when the bailiff arrived at the
property he was unable to gain access through the main door to the building and posted the
letter through a slight gap in the doorframe.