North East Lincolnshire Council

Municipal Offices, Grimsby

Town Hall Square North East Lincolnshire
Grimsby
North East Lincolnshire
DN31 1HU

24 February 2017

Dear Mr Oxby

Re: Councils Legal Team Manager Criminal misconduct

I write further to my letter of 10 August 2016 that concerned allegations of misconduct in public
office. I do so because despite having a legal and moral duty the Council has failed to act on new
information that has come to light.

It is no longer exclusively a matter of perjured evidence being improperly addressed by the

Monitoring and Chief Executive officers. The matter has now taken a new twist, with the
discovery of 10 items of post relating to the high court application allegedly sent to me by the
Justices Clerk for the Humber and South Yorkshire. None of the letters were delivered, though
copies dating back to August 2013 have since been obtained. The anomaly of the undelivered
post is a separate matter to be investigated, but what is relevant to the council presently is that
the new information, regardless of whether the letters were sent or produced afterwards, backs
up conclusively that the appeal was never withdrawn.

As the overriding reason for the alleged default was down to the Councils claim that the appeal
had been withdrawn, the Council has a duty to apply to the Magistrates court to have the order
quashed. To recap, the Council suspended recovery of the sum being appealed in the high court
until the case had been determined. However, it wrongly allocated monies to the disputed sum,
leaving the balance of the years account that should have been reduced in default. The Council
allocated monies to the wrong account attributing that decision to believing that the sum was no
longer disputed because the appeal had been withdrawn.

Even disregarding (a) the false statement; (b) monies being allocated to the wrong account and
(c); summons costs being misrepresented, the Councils opinion that the liability order was
correctly obtained overlooks legislation providing that the council exercise discretion in deciding
whether to seek the courts permission to enforce.

With discretion comes a responsibility to make the decision deemed most appropriate in the
circumstances. This course of action, therefore, should not be determined arbitrarily. An obvious
factor to consider would be whether pursuing court proceedings would disproportionately
increase the financial burden on the taxpayer because of expenditure incurred by the council
significantly outweighing alleged sums owed. Complaints for example, especially those which
escalate to the Ombudsman (and elsewhere) would in terms of resource expenditure, burden the
taxpayer to a far greater extent in cases where sums owed are insignificant and in any event
known already to be disputed.

Obviously the council has a duty to the taxpayer to collect arrears, but that cannot mean at any
cost. Resorting to legal action in these circumstances would be seen more as a lesson teaching
exercise than a proper use of the Magistrates court. An officer instituting court proceedings as a
retaliatory measure against someone whom the council holds a grudge is not only an abuse of the
court system but also a misuse of taxpayers money and clearly why the law does not provide the
enforcement of debt to be used as a penalty. An officer identified for imposing court costs, bailiff
fees and causing the protracted aggravation of having to address the injustice, for the purposes of
gaining personal satisfaction, would in a properly run public authority, expect to be to criminally
investigated.

The gross injustice Ive been caused is one matter, but what someone must be held accountable
for has been the obscene overall cost to the taxpayer. On a personal level, if it can be quantified
in monetary terms, the cost (including potential loss of earnings) if aggregated over the years for
the gross inconvenience of having to deal with the negligence, maladministration, and criminal
actions of the Council would amount to hundreds of thousands of pounds. However, if all the
public authorities which it has been necessary to involve were factored in it would increase the
burden on the taxpayer tenfold. The following list of public authorities have all been involved as
a direct consequence of the Councils blind pursuit of monies it is not entitled to:

North East Lincolnshire Council

Local Government Ombudsman (LGO)

Humberside Police

Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC)

Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO)

Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman (JACO)

Her Majesty's Court and Tribunal Service (HMCTS)

Information Commissioners Office (ICO)

Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO)

Unfounded claim that concerns have been addressed

Asserting that there would be no value in pursuing further investigation on account of the
concerns already being adjudicated would rely on the relevant public authorities having properly
and independently appraised the concerns. As the true situation is that these are sham
organisations positioned at the taxpayer's expense to merely give the impression that local
authorities are accountable, their findings are obviously not worth the paper theyre written on.

For example, legislation governing the LGOs investigatory powers has been enacted to enable
its application to cases with such flexibility that the same complaint could either fall within the
Ombudsman's remit and be accepted for investigation or be considered outside his remit and be
rejected. Preliminary assessments ensure complaints are filtered out so the vast majority fall at
the first hurdle. Outcomes are invariably angled towards invalidating the complaint based on
their judgment that the criterion to be considered valid under legislation governing investigatory
powers has not been met. Hence, the matter falls outside the LGO's remit.

Humberside polices investigation was obviously as much a sham (or non existent) as the one
claimed to have been carried out by the Council's Audit, Risk, Insurance and Corporate Fraud
team. Neither resulted in any evidence to substantiate their findings. The forces response was
just a series of spurious statements, with nothing supporting them concerning decisions the force
has previously claimed it had no remit to investigate. The complaint alleging Misconduct in
Public Office ran to 62 pages and many supporting documents were referred to in that paper
which the force never asked for. If the force seriously intended properly investigating the matters
then an effort would have been made to gather all relevant information, but at no time did
anyone from Humberside police enquire whether I had anything additional that would assist and
so there was no reason to believe that the force had carried out an investigation at all.

Anyone who has tried will know that getting the police to investigate crime is next to impossible.
The preferred system is routing challenges to decisions through the forces statutory complaint
procedure which falls under the Police Reform Act 2002 and the Police Reform and Social
Responsibility Act 2011. The majority of issues dont qualify to be dealt with by the Independent
Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) and are referred back to the police force to investigate
itself. The IPCC must act according to the legislation and has no remit to intervene where the
relevant authority to deal with a complaint/appeal, is the police force. The force complained
about can therefore contain the improper exercise of police powers, and prevent it from further
scrutiny, unless the person aggrieved is misguided enough to challenge the mater in the High
Court.

Councils formal complaints procedure

Once having exhausted all stages of the formal complaints procedure, the matters dealt with,
including any remotely linked to them, are deemed invalid issues for consideration if
subsequently raised with the Council. However, this procedure is as much a sham as the
approach taken by the aforementioned organisations and consequently the findings are similarly
not worth the paper theyre written on. The corrupt way in which complaints are dealt with
consequently adds a further injustice in that the Council considers it has discharged its duty and
is justified in refusing to respond further to correspondence.

Chief Executives final response to formal complaint

The Chief Executives final response to a formal complaint demonstrates perfectly the point. The
issues raised concerned profiteering from court costs applied to customers accounts in Council
Tax proceedings in the Magistrates court. Only expenditure attributable to obtaining a court
order is permitted to be recharged to the customer. Any expenditure incurred outside that
automated process (requesting the courts permission to enforce) is not lawfully recoverable
through the court costs to obtain a liability order.

Interpreting legislation in a way that encompasses all recovery and enforcement expenditure to
be legitimately rechargeable to defendants is misinterpreting the law1. Even if taking this
approach lessens the financial burden on the taxpayer there is no justification for doing so. The
misconceived entitlement to including any/all expenditure that could be considered remotely
relating to the collection and recovery of council tax attributed to court costs is implied in the 17
May 2011 final response:

There is no profit for the council when you take into account the costs of both recovery
and of dealing with the minority of our citizens that try to evade the payment of council
tax.... Indeed your case is a good example of the time and effort we put into
communicating with people and trying to resolve payment issues.

Not long after the complaint procedure was exhausted it was discovered that the Council had
changed the composition of the costs by increasing the summons from 32 to 70 (120%
increase) and no longer imposing 25 costs for obtaining the liability order. The decision was
agreed by Councillors following a public consultation in relation to budget proposals. It was
found that increasing summons costs as a means of generating income was favoured by the
majority of respondents over alternative proposals to introduce a charge for replacement bins or
garden waste collections.

This was serious official error and contempt for the law. Senior officers were clearly acting
beyond their powers to propose a scheme to generate income that involved manipulating court
costs and made more serious with its implementation being solely dependent on the outcome of a
ballot, as opposed a true evaluation of expenditure. The cost of issuing a summons only takes
into account the administration involved meaning the amount recharged to the defendant may not
be manipulated to balance budgets. The Chief Executives final response to this formal
complaint regarding what made up the costs was as follows:

1
Intended submission for appeal to high court (Exhibit 5 Commencement of enforcement.pdf) and letter to Grimsby
Magistrates court (NELC costs 14 Jan 16.pdf).
 The summons penalty costs were increased to 70 in April 2011 an increase of 23%,
and are now inclusive of obtaining a liability order. This increase is in line with national
averages for unitary authorities, which according to the chartered institute of public
finance and accountancy (CIPFA) is 78. This fee is used in order to cover the following
costs:

the cost for the use of the court

the wages of the staff employed to collect Council Tax and Business Rates
ICT costs
postage

Bearing in mind the additional costs of chasing late payment of council tax the amount of
summons penalty costs remain reasonable when compared with the national average and
our neighbouring council's of Hull and East Riding who charge 80.

The Councils Chief Executive dismissed both matters as unfounded when clearly he had no
understanding of the law concerning the issue. This however, is only part of the injustice as once
a complaint procedure has completed2, the Councils policy is to enter into no further discussion
and consider the matter closed. How then is anyone to have confidence in the complaints process
and be assured that their grievances have been properly addressed?

The Council should have expected that at some time the legality of its administration would be
looked into and the dubious actions scrutinised. Facilitating this has not been recreational, rather
a significant burden, caused some years ago by the Councils intransigence (not accepting
responsibility for its contractor bailiffs attempts to defraud me). It was this that triggered further
examination uncovering among other matters the Council routinely denying any wrongdoing
when the trouble was taken to raise matters through its formal complaint procedure.

Denying fault, apart from adding to the injustice, enables the presentation of misleading figures
that look favourable in performance league tables published annually by the LGO. No rational
thinking person would endorse the actions that are routinely defended by the Council, however,
there is no pressure to do otherwise as Councillors funded by the taxpayer to represent the
boroughs residents are apparently not fulfilling their role. Elected members, for example, sitting
on scrutiny panels demonstrate their acquiescence by routinely voting in favour of proposals that
are of questionable legality and would certainly be objected to by the majority of the public. The
necessary scrutiny that has arisen from the councils actions has enabled it to benefit in respect
of the catalogue of negligence and maladministration it has been made aware of, but which has
come at a huge cost to myself.

2
In this instance, the acting Monitoring Officer has denied due process by refusing to deal with the formal
complaint. Upon escalating the decision to the Independent Review stage of the process she has stated that no
further acknowledgement or response will be provided to any correspondence of a similar nature regarding the same
issues.
Gross Misconduct of the Council's Legal Team Manager

Im aware that, with effect from 3 January 2017 the Council's Legal Team Manager has been
authorised to take on the Monitoring Officers duty, i.e., to ensure that the Councils decision
making is carried out lawfully3. Therefore, it is Mrs Richardson-Smith who is presently the
person against whom Misconduct is alleged on account of the statutory function not being
fulfilled in the way defined in law. As a result of refusing to acknowledge or respond to further
correspondence in the matter (see Annex A correspondence), the acting Monitoring Officer has
made a conscious decision to (a) obstruct due process in the formal complaints procedure and
(b); prevent the Councils court enforcement manager from taking steps to rectify the Councils
error, i.e., asking the Magistrates court to have the order quashed.

Suspected motives for ensuring that the gross injustice continues appear to be either for personal
gratification (to inflict a penalty), protecting the person who knowingly submitted a false
statement to the court and/or protecting the relevant holders of judicial office. District Judge
Daniel Curtis for example held evidence about the Councils false statement in relation to the 30
October 2015 court hearing but granted the liability order regardless. Had there been a fair
hearing and the order denied the judge would have implicated the Justices Clerk for the Humber
and South Yorkshire. The focus would have inevitably turned to the gross negligence of the
Justices Clerk in mishandling my high court appeal (linked to 10 items of undelivered post).

In light of the overwhelming evidence that the department pursued and obtained a Council Tax
liability order based upon false evidence (proved beyond all doubt) it is inconceivable what other
motive the council could have for refusing to resolve the matter other than those set out above.
Refusing to resolve the matter for any of these reasons would constitute an abuse of position for
which the officer responsible should face criminal charges (misconduct in public office). The
law does not provide the enforcement of civil debt to function as a penalty; however, the council
is clearly making use of the Magistrates court for this purpose, in light of the enforcement being
carried for no debt. Making an example of the officer responsible would improve standards
within the council and reduce massively the financial burden on the taxpayer.

The threat of a criminal record could be what is needed for a would-be offender to think twice
about using their public office for an improper purpose which is to disproportionately subject
those concerned to gross injustice. It would also focus minds that to cause this much harassment
is an unacceptable trade off for covering up maladministration. Where an officer faces the
prospects of being given a criminal record and consequently having this go against them when
seeking other employment, the consequence of having taken such a remedy would likely be an
effective deterrent against improper conduct.

3
The Monitoring Officer has the specific duty to ensure that the Council, its Officers, and its Elected Councillors,
maintain the highest standards of conduct in all they do.
Putting it right

I assume there was no further response to the previous letter alleging criminal misconduct
because you considered being let off the hook on account of Humberside polices sham dealing
with the matter. As previously stated, the forces findings are not worth the paper theyre written
on, and if you were completely honest with yourself you would agree.

Police complicity has probably emboldened the council to take further liberties with the law;
seeing it as a green light to push the boundaries of what it might get away with, with impunity.
Defending the indefensible where there is not even an attempt to support its decision strongly
suggests this is the case. Clearly it would serve no useful purpose to refer the matter to
Humberside police for it once again to be processed by the forces cover-up specialist. In your
capacity as Council leader you must be held accountable when members and employees act
unlawfully, I therefore suggest you take responsibility for overseeing this matter and inform me
of the steps being taken to address it. Allowing this to prolong further without resolve will only
add to the already serious consequences for the council.

I have appended correspondence in chronological order for your assistance in relation to the
most recent communications. Where supporting documents considered too voluminous to be
included herein, and which are deemed relevant (for example email attachments), these are
provided separately.

Yours sincerely

.
 Annex A

LIST OF RELEVANT CORRESPONDENCE

(ordered chronologically)

No # DATE DESCRIPTION COMMENTS

1 8 Dec 2016 Email to HMCTS Customer Service (complaints) 6 months delay responding

2 20 Dec 2016 Email to MP Intervention in complaints

handling

3 3 Jan 2017 Email from HMCTS (response to complaint) Copies attached of 7

undelivered items of post

4 5 Jan 2017 Email to HMCTS (various Copied in) Confirming that none of the
letters had been received
5 11 Jan 2017 Email from Humber & South Yorkshire Admin Acknowledging email (5 Jan)

6 12 Jan 2017 Email to Councils Monitoring Officer (various Requesting application to court
Copied in) to quash liability order

7 2017 Supporting document (Case stated application *Provided separately*

missing docs.pdf)

8 13 Jan 2017 Email from Councils Monitoring Officer Deputy Monitoring Officer
authorised

9 16 Jan 2017 Email from Humber & South Yorkshire Admin Attached letter regarding
appeal to high court
10 13 Jan 2017 Attached letter (email 16 Jan) from Justices Clerk Advising on high court appeal
for Humber & South Yorkshire
11 16 Jan 2017 Email to Justices Clerk Acknowledging letter (13 Jan)

12 17 Jan 2017 Email to Deputy Monitoring Officer Update on high court appeal

13 26 Jan 2017 Email from Deputy Monitoring Officer Response to email (12 Jan)

14 26 Jan 2017 Email to Deputy Monitoring Officer Proposed consent order (high
court)
15 2017 Proposed consent order *Provided separately*

16 26 Jan 2017 Email to Deputy Monitoring Officer Escalating complaint to quash

liability order (stage 2)
17 26 Jan 2017 Email to HMCTS (complaint) Escalating complaint (HMCTS)

18 27 Jan 2017 Email from HMCTS (complaint) Redirected complaint

19 3 Feb 2017 Email to Deputy Monitoring Officer Prompting response

20 7 Feb 2017 Email from Deputy Monitoring Officer Refusal to correspond further

21 9 Feb 2017 Email from Deputy Monitoring Officer Declining proposal (consent
order)
22 14 Feb 2017 Email to HMCTS (complaint) Prompting response

23 20 Feb 2017 Email to HMCTS (complaint) Prompting response

24 20 Feb 2017 Email from HMCTS (complaint) Confirming complaint is being

dealt with
 Page 1 of 1

From: " "< @gmail.com>

To: "HMCTS Customer Service (Correspondence)" <ComplaintsCorres&LT@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk>
Sent: 08 December 2016 10:35
Subject: Re: : Complaint - Grimsby Magistrate's court

Dear Anisul Haque

You will be aware from previous emails that my complaint has been with the Justices' Clerk, Alison Watts, for
approaching 6 months and have not yet received any indication that an investigation is underway.

I have discussed the matter with a caseworker at the Parliamentary Ombudsman yesterday and have been
advised to contact my MP to request that the Ombudsman intervene. However, before I do so I need to allow
HMCTS another opportunity to provide a response within a reasonable time frame and so formally asking that
a date is given by which I can expect the outcome.

Yours sincerely

From: " "< @gmail.com>

To: <melanie.onn.mp@parliament.uk>
Sent: 20 December 2016 16:53
Subject: HM Courts & Tribunal Service Customer Investigations Team

Dear Melanie Onn

Re: HM Courts & Tribunal Service Customer Investigations Team

I have discussed my concerns with the Parliamentary Ombudsman (7 December) about a failure to get a
response to a complaint formally submitted to HM Courts & Tribunal Service. The caseworker advised I
contact you to request that the Ombudsman intervene if the court continues to be uncooperative.

As set out in my December 8 correspondence below I have given the Customer Investigations Team further
opportunity to respond which the service has not taken.

The difficulty probably arises in the fact that the Investigations Team referred the complaint to the person
whom my complaint concerns.

I would appreciated if you would ask the Ombudsman to intervene. The caseworker who I have
communicated with on this matter is Mr Ian Conroy who can be contacted on telephone number: 0300 061
4609 and email: ian.conroy@ombudsman.org.uk

Yours sincerely

10/01/2017
 Page 1 of 1

From: "NE RSU FOI & DPA" <NERSUFOI&DPA@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk>

To: " "< @gmail.com>
Sent: 03 January 2017 08:43
Attach: Mr - Letter 13.12.16.pdf; Mr - Letter 22.7.16.pdf; Mr - Letter 28.11.16.pdf;
Final Case.pdf; Mr - Letter 1.5.14.pdf; Mr - Letter 15.4.16.pdf; Mr - Letter
19.12.13.pdf; Mr - Letter 20.2.14.pdf
Subject: Complaint submitted 25 June 2016

Dear Mr ,

Please find enclosed herewith responses sent to yourself by post in respect of your complaint sent to the
Customer Service Unit on 25 June 2016, the first response was posted on 22 July 2016.

As you will see further letters were sent to you on 28 November 2016 and 13 December 2016 by post to the
address below. At no time has any correspondence been returned to the sender by Royal Mail.

Mr

Grimsby
North East Lincolnshire
DN32

I also enclose herewith a copy of the letters sent (again by post) to the above address on 19 December 2013,
20 February 2014, 1 May 2014 and 15 April 2016 and the "case stated" document.

Can I ask would your preference for any future communications be sent solely by way of email, to ensure
delivery?

Your email of 13 October to myself and the issues you raise has been reviewed at this office by both the Head
of the Regional Support Unit and the Delivery Director for the North East Region, and please be assured that
the Delivery Director is fully appraised of the situation.

If you remain dissatisfied with Ms Watts' reply of 22 July 2016, then you may of course request a review of the
reply by the Cluster Manager for Humber & South Yorkshire. Any review must follow the complaint escalation
procedure as you did with the response to your complaint dated 11 August 2016.

Yours sincerely

K Smith

K Smith
NE Region KILO
NE Delivery Directors Office,
Level 5 | Leeds Magistrates Court & Family Hearing Centre | PO Box 97 | Westgate | Leeds | LS1 3JP | DX:
743892 Leeds (Westgate)
Tel: 0113 2511200

10/01/2017
 Page 1 of 1

From: " "< @gmail.com>

To: "NE RSU FOI & DPA" <NERSUFOI&DPA@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk>
Cc: "Maione, Tony" <Tony.Maione@Nelincs.gov.uk>; <Alison.Watts@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk>
Sent: 05 January 2017 13:29
Subject: Re: Complaint submitted 25 June 2016

Dear Ms Smith

Thank you for your 3 January 2017 response and attachments.

I can confirm that none of the letters, stated to have been sent, have been delivered to me. The first time I
have seen copies of them was 3 January 2017.

I had been informed on 23 February 2016 that the final case had been sent to me but unaware that the date it
was sent was 19 December 2013 until seeing a copy of the cover letter on 3 January 2017.

The number of undelivered items sent by post which I'm now aware of in this matter totals 11, therefore, I
would prefer future correspondence to be sent by email as you suggest.

I fully anticipate escalating my complaint to the next stage but my priority is lodging the application with the
Administrative Office at the Royal Courts of Justice and therefore ask that a signed copy of the final case is
sent to me to enable this (the copy I have is unsigned and marked "office copy").

It has been confirmed by North East Lincolnshire Council that it holds no record of the final case and suggest
that a signed copy is also served on the Council in accordance with Part 35 of the Criminal Procedure Rules
2015 (35.3 sub-paragraph 9).

Yours sincerely

From: "JC-H&SY" <JC-H&SY@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk>

To: < @gmail.com>
Sent: 11 January 2017 16:41
Subject: Email request of 5 January 2017

Dear Mr

I confirm that your email request of 5 January 2017 has been received at this office and is receiving attention.

You will receive the document requested and a reply to your message by 13 January 2017.

Yours sincerely

Celine Allerton
Legal Admin Team Leader - Humber & South Yorkshire Cluster
Doncaster Justice Centre South
College Road
Doncaster DN1 3HS
Tel: 01302 308300

Please consider the environment - Do you really need to print this e-mail?

I am not authorised to bind the Ministry of Justice contractually, nor to make representations or other statements which may bind the Ministry of
Justice in any way via electronic means

21/02/2017
 Page 1 of 2

From: " "< @gmail.com>

To: "Maione, Tony" <Tony.Maione@Nelincs.gov.uk>
Cc: <A.Hobley@coinweb.lgo.org.uk>; "Wilson, Christine 5531
"<Christine.Wilson@humberside.pnn.police.uk>; <Roy.Wernham@ico.gsi.gov.uk>
Sent: 12 January 2017 17:57
Attach: Case stated application missing docs.pdf
Subject: Application to magistrates' court to quash liability order

Dear Mr Maione

Re: Application to magistrates' court to quash liability order

I write in reference to my email which was acknowledged by yourself on 5 January 2017

regarding undelivered documents in an application to the High court. I eventually obtained an unsigned copy
of a key document on 3 January 2017 (over 3 years after it appears to have been produced), presumably
prompted by involvement of my MP and Parliamentary Ombudsman.

The application is a case stated appeal with North East Lincolnshire Council (NELC) named the 'Respondent'.
I have written confirmation from the court that by 13 January 2017 I will receive the signed 'case' which I
intend lodging with the Administrative Office.

With reference to a Council Tax liability hearing on 30 October 2015 and subsequent complaint
(NEL/1172/1516) which escalated to the Local Government Ombudsman, this is yet more evidence that my
appeal to the High Court had never been withdrawn and the Magistrates' court granted a court order
erroneously.

NELC succeeded in persuading the Magistrates' court that the council correctly allocated monies to a sum
which was suspended pending the outcome of my High Court appeal on the basis that I had withdrawn the
case and the sum no longer suspended.

Attached is a document containing a number of relevant correspondence arranged chronologically spanning

the period of the undelivered letters (since obtained) and positioned in context. This, and information already
held by the council should be enough to satisfy the magistrates' court that the liability order should not have
been made. It is therefore a reasonable expectation that the council apply in accordance regulation 36A of the
Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 to have the order quashed. When the council
was previously asked to do this (See ANNEX A) the request was unsuccessful.

NELC should also recognise that those unfortunate enough to find themselves caught up in these matters are
subjected to time consuming and destructive disputes which are completely disproportionate to the issues
they concern. A resolution should therefore be sought at the earliest opportunity and not be allowed to
continue indefinitely. The Council has a responsibility to put right its errors and adequately compensate for
them, taking further into consideration the gross inconvenience caused when protracted over such lengthy
periods of time.

If the Magistrates' court were to quash the liability order granted on 30 October 2015 then the 60 costs
added in September 2015 would have been invalid and require removing from my account. The misallocated
payment of 60 would require reallocating to the 2015/16 account and the disputed costs would remain
suspended until the High Court appeal had concluded. Lastly, the 211 total outstanding on various
accounts would be reduced to 91 (final instalment of 2015/16 account) which is an amount I do not dispute
and would settle without fear of payment being allocated wrongly.

Yours sincerely

22/02/2017
 Page 2 of 2

ANNEX A

Excerpt from 26 January 2016 letter (Formal Complaint NEL/1172/1516)

"Liability order

Lastly there is no reason why the council should assert that the concerns raised about the Liability order falls
outside the scope of the complaints process.

The Local Government Act 2003 introduced into the Local Government Finance Act 1992 the provision
enabling the secretary of state to make regulations giving magistrates' courts powers to quash a liability order
if it was satisfied that one should not have been made. The explanatory notes to the 2003 Act describes the
only avenue available for this before the provision which is as follows:

At present, this can only be achieved on application to a higher court. The cost involved is unwarranted
where there is no dispute about the facts.

I understand the above means a defendant may only appeal a decision to the High Court either by way of a
case stated or judicial review. As implied, both are unreasonable procedures for an ordinary person to have to
embark upon with it likely taking years (if ever) to succeed in having the case brought before the court. There
is no dispute either about the facts in this case.

The application was made because the council had misallocated monies to a sum subject to appeal on the
basis that it believed the case had been withdrawn and the sum no longer suspended. The appeal had never
been withdrawn and the simple fact is that the council could not have believed it had by the incriminating
evidence in the form of Exhibits which supported its witness statement. It has the minimum duty to apply to the
Magistrates to have the liability order quashed as it has been brought to the councils attention that the
application should never have been made......."
 Page 1 of 1

From: "Tony Maione (NELC)" <Tony.Maione@Nelincs.gov.uk>

To: " "< @gmail.com>
Cc: <A.Hobley@coinweb.lgo.org.uk>; "Wilson, Christine 5531
"<Christine.Wilson@humberside.pnn.police.uk>; <Roy.Wernham@ico.gsi.gov.uk>; "Emma
Finch (NELC)" <Emma.Finch@nelincs.gov.uk>; "Eve Richardson-Smith (NELC)"
<Eve.Richardson-Smith@Nelincs.gov.uk>
Sent: 13 January 2017 09:28
Subject: RE: Application to magistrates' court to quash liability order

Dear Mr ,

Please be advised that, with effect from 3 January 2017, I started a secondment from the Council to its
regeneration partner, Engie which has an initial duration of three months.

For the duration of this secondment I authorised the Councils Deputy Monitoring Officer, Mrs Eve
Richardson-Smith, to carry out the relevant functions. I have copied Mrs Richardson-Smith into this email
along with Emma Finch who is a legal support officer at the Council.

A substantive response to your email below, receipt of which is acknowledged, will be provided by or on
behalf of Mrs Richardson-Smith.

Regards

Tony Maione

From: "JC-H&SY" <JC-H&SY@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk>

To: < @gmail.com>
Sent: 16 January 2017 13:20
Attach: Mr - Letter 13.1.17.pdf; Final Case - Signed.pdf
Subject: Appeal by Way of Case Stated

Dear Mr

Please find attached correspondence from Mrs A Watts, Justices Clerk, and a copy of the signed
final case, as requested.

Yours sincerely

Lynne Keeton
Administration Officer
Judicial Support Unit
Doncaster Justice Centre South
College Road
Doncaster
DN1 3HS

Telephone: 01302 308300

22/02/2017
 MrsAWatts
Justices' Clerk for
Humber & South Yorkshire
Doncaster Justice Centre South
HM Courts & College Road
Doncaster
Tribunals Service DN13HS

DX 703001 Doncaster 5

When calling please ask for: Judicial Support Unit T: 01302 308300
Direct Line: 01302308300
E: JC-H&SY@hmcts,gsLqov.uk

www.justice.gov.uk
ent
-Grlmsby--~ ~
North East Lincolnshire
DN320QJ

Our ref: AW/CA 13 January 2017

Dear Mr r-" .

Please find attached electronic copy of the signed final case, as requested.

The Rules supervising the initial procedures for appeals by way of case stated from decisions of
the magistrates' courts in respect of civil proceedings (council tax proceedings are civil
proceedings) are not the Criminal Procedure Rules as you have suggested in your
correspondence, but the Magistrates Courts Rules 1981 (MCR) and the Civil Procedure Rules
1998 (CPR) and Practice Direction 52E which supplements Part 52 of the CPR.

The MCR require service by the Court of the draft case upon both the applicant for a case to be
stated and the respondent, but the final case is served only upon the applicant by the Court under
the MCR. The Practice Direction states that it is for the appellant to lodge the final case in the
Administrative Court within 10 days of receipt thereof, and to serve a copy of the final case upon
the respondent within 4 days thereafter. Accordingly the final case has not been served on North
East Lincolnshire Council by the Court as it is the duty of the appellant to do so.

I shall be grateful if you will acknowledge receipt of this correspondence and the final case.

Yours sincerely

Mrs A Watts
Justices' Clerk - Humber and South Yorkshire
 Page 1 of 1

From: " "< @gmail.com>

To: <Alison.Watts@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk>
Cc: "JC-H&SY" <JC-H&SY@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk>
Sent: 16 January 2017 15:01
Subject: Appeal by Way of Case Stated

Dear Mrs Watts

I acknowledge receipt of your correspondence and final case (16 January 2017) and note that the case must
be lodged with the Administrative Court Office within 10 days.

Yours sincerely

From: " "< @gmail.com>

To: "Eve Richardson-Smith (NELC)" <Eve.Richardson-Smith@Nelincs.gov.uk>
Cc: "Emma Finch (NELC)" <Emma.Finch@nelincs.gov.uk>
Sent: 17 January 2017 11:40
Attach: Case stated signed received 16 Jan 17.pdf
Subject: Signed final case stated

Dear Ms Richardson-Smith

Re: Signed final case stated

Please find attached a copy of the final case stated, signed by Mrs A Watts, Justices Clerk for Humber &
South Yorkshire in the matter of a hearing for Council Tax liability on 2 November 2012.

There is some doubt as to whether the Court should have served this document on North East Lincolnshire
Council (the Respondent) at this stage or served by myself after lodging the Appellant's notice with the
Administrative Court.

The Magistrates Courts Rules 1981 requires service by the Court of the draft case upon both the applicant
and the respondent by registered letter/recorded delivery if sent by post but the final case requires service on
the applicant only. However, Practice Direction 52E which is relevant to Civil Procedure Rules in a Case
Stated appeal says at paragraph 2.1 that the procedure is set out in the Criminal Procedure Rules which
requires the court to serve both a draft and the final case on each party.

I am required to provide information about the respondent in the Appellant's notice (form N161) and would
appreciate knowing whether the Council will be legally represented and if so the name and address of the its
legal representative.

Finally it would be more convenient to transfer documents electronically therefore ask if the Council is willing
to accept service by email, and if so, please nominate an appropriate address to which papers can be sent
and whether there are any limitations to accept service, for example, format or maximum size of attachments.

Yours sincerely

22/02/2017
 Page 1 of 1

From: "Res - Customer Services" <Res-CustomerServices@nelincs.gov.uk>

To: < @gmail.com>
Cc: <A.Hobley@coinweb.lgo.org.uk>; <Roy.Wernham@ico.gsi.gov.uk>
Sent: 26 January 2017 08:18
Subject: FW: Application to magistrates' court to quash liability order

Dear Mr

Thank you for your latest correspondence regarding this matter. To confirm North East
Lincolnshire Council stands by the action taken and will not be undertaking any further
investigation.

Yours sincerely on behalf of North East Lincolnshire Council

Eve Richardson-Smith LLB

Legal Team Manager & Deputy Monitoring Officer

From: " "< @gmail.com>

To: "Eve Richardson-Smith (NELC)" <Eve.Richardson-Smith@Nelincs.gov.uk>
Sent: 26 January 2017 09:09
Attach: Consent order.pdf
Subject: Signed final case stated (Consent order)

Dear Ms Richardson-Smith

Re: Signed final case stated (Consent order)

Further to my email of 17 January 2017 regarding the case stated appeal, please find attached a proposed
consent order.

If the terms are agreeable to North East Lincolnshire Council after considering the document I would
appreciate it if a mutually convenient time could be arranged for the paper to be signed.

Yours sincerely

22/02/2017
 Page 1 of 1

From: " "< @gmail.com>

To: "Res - Customer Services" <Res-CustomerServices@nelincs.gov.uk>
Cc: <A.Hobley@coinweb.lgo.org.uk>; <Roy.Wernham@ico.gsi.gov.uk>
Sent: 26 January 2017 11:27
Subject: Re: Application to magistrates' court to quash liability order

Dear Eve Richardson Smith

Stage 2 independent review

Your response is entirely unsatisfactory. Firstly I have not asked the Council to undertake an investigation on
account of one being unnecessary, and secondly, there is nothing to support the Council's decision.

The council has been provided overwhelming evidence that it pursued Council Tax recovery through the
Magistrates' court when it shouldn't have.

The simplest way to remedy this is for the Council to apply to the court to have the liability order quashed.

I understand that an application to the court under regulation 36A of the Council Tax Regulations can only be
made by the local authority. However, that doesn't warrant the authority using its discretion irresponsibly
where there is no dispute about the facts. If the person with overall responsibility for this decision continues to
leave the matter unresolved (knowing the serious consequences) then there is absolutely no doubt
whatsoever that the person is unfit for public office.

Yours sincerely

22/02/2017
 Page 1 of 2

From: " "< @gmail.com>

To: <julie.collins1@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk>
Sent: 26 January 2017 15:38
Attach: Case stated application missing docs.pdf
Subject: Grimsby Magistrates' court Complaint - submitted 25 June 2016

Dear Ms Collins,

Re: Grimsby Magistrates' court Complaint - submitted 25 June 2016

I am escalating my complaint to you partly because as I consider Ms Watts' reply dated 22 July 2016 is
unsatisfactory, but mainly because of the time and effort required to obtain it (28 weeks). The response was
not seen until 3 January 2017 when it was emailed to me (a copy) by the NE Delivery Directors Office. Copies
of seven other letters going back as long ago as December 2013 were also attached which I had seen for the
first time.

Issues surrounding the reply dated 22 July

Initial delay

I regard the court having insufficient contingencies for staff members leaving is maladministration. Even if the
situation did arise because there was no staff available to supervise the case it would have been expected
that this could have been communicated.

Unnecessary Claim for Mandatory Order

A letter before action dated 29 April 2013 reiterated the situation regarding my financial circumstances which
had first been raised in a letter dated 5 February 2013 (see quote below):

"The justices once deciding that a recognizance is necessary must take the applicant's means into
account in setting the amount. A completed EX160 form accompanied my application to the
Magistrates court to state the case (22 November 2012). The supporting papers detailing my gross
annual income provided evidence that this was substantially below the set level, and so qualified for full
remission of the Magistrates court fee.

It is therefore illogical that by completing form EX160 (effectively means tested) I qualified for full
remission of the 500 Magistrates court fee, whilst the justices, after presumably taking my means into
account, concluded that the recognizance should be 500. Setting such a fee in these circumstances
could be seen as a denial of access to the Courts."

The judicial review claim could have been avoided if my letter was addressed. Instead, I was put to the trouble
of instituting another High Court procedure which was entirely alien to me. Only after the claim was underway
was it made known in the court's Acknowledgement of Service that the question of the appropriateness of the
recognizance and/or the amount could have been considered by the court.

Unanswered correspondence to obtain final case

None of the letters going back as long ago as December 2013 were delivered.

The correspondence which I did receive (email) on 6 March 2014 in response to prompting does not fit in
logically with the other letters that I now have copies of. The 6 March email stated that the position regarding
the case (advising on the next steps) would be set out in writing even though this had already been set out
twice by that time in letters dated 19 December 2013 and 20 February 2014. In both letters the following was
stated:

"If you wish to pursue your appeal, the case must be lodged with the Administrative Court Office at the
Royal Courts of Justice within 10 days of receiving it from this office, and within four days of lodging the
case, the you must serve on the Respondent a notice of entry of the appeal together with a copy of the
case."

In any event the case stated document should have been sent registered/recorded as I understand the
Magistrates Courts Rules 1981 provide for this.

22/02/2017
 Page 2 of 2

Judicial complaint to Humber Advisory Committee

The response regarding the Judicial Conduct and Investigations Office and the Judicial Ombudsman not
upholding the complaint is entirely irrelevant to the present issue.

The Judicial Ombudsman obtained three items of undelivered post in his preliminary enquiries which further
identified that the final case stated had at some time been produced. The number of undelivered items sent by
post which I'm now aware of totals ten. There are virtually zero odds that ten items of correspondence
correctly addressed (all but a minor error in three) were sent that neither reached me nor were returned.
There has to be another explanation.

The list of undelivered post is as follows:

1) Letter 19 December 2013 (final case enclosed)

2) Letter 20 February 2014 (final case enclosed)

3) Letter 1 May 2014 (final case enclosed)

4) Letter (Humber Advisory Committee) 16 September 2014

5) Letter (Humber Advisory Committee) 29 May 2014

6) Letter (Humber Advisory Committee) 6 July 2015

7) Letter 15 April 2016 (final case enclosed)

8) Complaint response 22 July 2016

9) Letter 28 November 2016 (complaint response enclosed)

10) Letter 13 December 2016 (relating to unrelated enquiry)

I have attached a document containing a number of relevant correspondence arranged chronologically

spanning the period of the undelivered letters (unreceived items positioned in context) which I hope will be of
assistance in the review. If any of the contents of this email are not valid matters to be raised in this complaint
please consider those (missing items of post) to be a new complaint.

I believe at this stage of the complaint's procedure HMCTS aims to reply within 10 working days.

Yours sincerely

22/02/2017
 Page 1 of 1

From: "Collins1, Julie" <julie.collins1@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk>

To: " "< @gmail.com>
Sent: 27 January 2017 15:58
Subject: RE: Grimsby Magistrates' court Complaint - submitted 25 June 2016

Dear Mr

Thank you for your e-mail, received yesterday.

Given that your complaint relates to Grimsby Magistrates Court, which falls within the Humber and South
Yorkshire HMCTS area, I have forwarded your e-mail to Paul Hopgood the Cluster Manager with responsibility
for that group of courts.

Mr Hopgood will respond to your complaint in due course.

Yours sincerely

J. Collins

Julie Collins
Cluster Manager
HMCTS - North & West Yorkshire

From: " "< @gmail.com>

To: "Res - Customer Services" <Res-CustomerServices@nelincs.gov.uk>
Cc: <A.Hobley@coinweb.lgo.org.uk>; <Roy.Wernham@ico.gsi.gov.uk>
Sent: 03 February 2017 12:36
Subject: Re: Application to magistrates' court to quash liability order

Dear Sir/Madam

I should have had acknowledgement of this complaint by 28 January 2017. According to North East
Lincolnshire Council's Corporate Feedback Policy (see para 7.12) a complaint escalated to stage two should
be acknowledged within 2 working days.

https://www.nelincs.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Corporate-Feedback-Policy.pdf

Yours sincerely

22/02/2017
 Page 1 of 1

From: "Res - Customer Services" <Res-CustomerServices@nelincs.gov.uk>

To: < @gmail.com>
Cc: <A.Hobley@coinweb.lgo.org.uk>; <Roy.Wernham@ico.gsi.gov.uk>
Sent: 07 February 2017 13:12
Subject: RE: Application to magistrates' court to quash liability order

Dear Mr

I refer you to the response provided to you on 26th January 2017 confirming that North East
Lincolnshire Council will not be undertaking any further investigation into this matter. For
clarity, no further acknowledgement or response will be provided to any correspondence of
a similar nature regarding the same issues.

Yours sincerely on behalf of North East Lincolnshire Council

Eve Richardson-Smith LLB

Legal Team Manager & Deputy Monitoring Officer

From: "Eve Richardson-Smith (NELC)" <Eve.Richardson-Smith@Nelincs.gov.uk>

To: " "< @gmail.com>
Sent: 09 February 2017 12:20
Subject: RE: Signed final case stated (Consent order)

Dear Mr

Thank you for your email.

As I understand the current position, there is no formal application before the High Court, hence there can
be no legal basis for a Consent Order. Therefore the Council is not at liberty to entertain such a request and
is not in a position to consider, agree or sign such an order.

Regards

Eve Richardson-Smith LLB, Legal Team Manager & Deputy Monitoring Officer, Legal Services, North East
Lincolnshire Council
Municipal Offices, Town Hall Square, Grimsby, DN31 1HU | DX13536 Grimsby 1

: 01472 324159 | : eve.richardson-smith@nelincs.gov.uk | www.nelincs.gov.uk

22/02/2017
 Page 1 of 1

From: " "< @gmail.com>

To: "Collins1, Julie" <julie.collins1@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk>
Cc: <christine.wilson@humberside.pnn.police.uk>; "NE RSU FOI & DPA"
<NERSUFOI&DPA@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk>; <melanie.onn.mp@parliament.uk>; "Conroy Ian"
<Ian.Conroy@ombudsman.org.uk>
Sent: 14 February 2017 10:33
Subject: Re: Grimsby Magistrates' court Complaint - submitted 25 June 2016

Dear Ms Collins

My understanding is that this matter should have been dealt with by 10 February 2017. You have said that my
email has been forwarded to Paul Hopgood (presumably you are no longer the Humber and South Yorkshire
Cluster Manager).

I have been unable to contact Paul Hopgood in this matter and ask that you also forward this to him and
include my address in order for me to correspond with him directly.

Yours sincerely

From: " "< @gmail.com>

To: "NE RSU FOI & DPA" <NERSUFOI&DPA@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk>
Cc: <christine.wilson@humberside.pnn.police.uk>; "Collins1, Julie"
<julie.collins1@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk>; <melanie.onn.mp@parliament.uk>; "Conroy Ian"
<Ian.Conroy@ombudsman.org.uk>
Sent: 20 February 2017 15:24
Subject: Re: Grimsby Magistrates' court Complaint - submitted 25 June 2016

Dear Sir/Madam

I would appreciate if someone would intervene in this matter. I believe a response should have been provided
by 10 February 2017.

If the reason I have had no reply is because the matter is in the hands of the police I would like to know.

Yours sincerely

22/02/2017
 Page 1 of 1

From: "NE RSU FOI & DPA" <NERSUFOI&DPA@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk>

To: " "< @gmail.com>
Sent: 20 February 2017 15:35
Subject: RE: Grimsby Magistrates' court Complaint - submitted 25 June 2016

Dear Mr ,

I acknowledge your email herewith in respect of the review reply and can confirm that your
request for a review of the complaint response is being dealt with.

I have asked the Humber & South Yorkshire Cluster Team to up date you in this matter

Yours sincerely

K Smith

K Smith
NE Region KILO
NE Delivery Directors Office,
Level 5 | Leeds Magistrates Court & Family Hearing Centre | PO Box 97 | Westgate | Leeds
| LS1 3JP | DX: 743892 Leeds (Westgate)

22/02/2017