North East Lincolnshire Council

Finance Department Grimsby

Civic Offices Knoll Street North East Lincolnshire
Cleethorpes DN32
North East Lincolnshire
DN35 8LN

17 July 2018

[Misdated 2016 on original]

Dear Sir/Madam

Re: Council tax Ref: 550 – Formal Complaint

I would like the Council to investigate its enforcement contractor Jacobs due to the fact that I found
by chance the enclosed letter which had not been delivered threatening the removal of goods which
should either have been handed to me, or if I was not in, put through the letter box.

The letter was found on a ground level window ledge on the 12 July 2018 in the stairwell of the
building that contains my own and a number of other resident’s flats. The enforcement notice was
hand delivered in a sealed envelope with my name, address, flat number and in red bold capitals the
warning, “URGENT - DO NOT IGNORE” all visible through the envelope window. The letter was
dated 10 July so presumably it had been seen by neighbours and anyone who visited the building
over the two days it took me to come across it. Potentially, however, the letter could have been
taken by any of those people; if for example, they were curious to further understand the matter
which was obvious by the warning visible through the envelope window.

There is a numbered intercom system with buzzer outside the building for each flat and I can say
with all certainty that I would have heard it if it was operated. I was in all day on the day the letter
was left but did not hear the intercom. Though this is academic anyway as whoever left the letter
must have been allowed access by someone. If he/she had got through the security door there was
no reason why they would not have knocked on my door and if there was no answer put the notice
through the letter box. Clearly every effort was made not to make contact but the fee of £235 was
added in respect of approximately and stealthily delivering a letter.
The placing of the letter in a communal place was intentionally done to ensure as far as was
practical the purpose of the visit to neighbours and anyone who visited the building. In that case this
must have at least been a breach of Government published official guidelines which state:

“Enforcement agents should, so far as it is practical, avoid disclosing the purpose of their
visit to anyone other than the debtor or a third party nominated by the debtor, for example an
advice agency representative. Where the debtor is not seen, the relevant documents must be
left at the address in a sealed envelope addressed to the debtor.”

Also, depending on what the purpose of the visit is there is the question to consider as to whether
imposing a £235 fee in the circumstances is fraud. If the £235 charge is merely a penalty then there
would be no requirement to hand deliver the letter, though civil enforcement should not provide for
imposing financial penalties – only covering the cost of carrying out the work involved. My guess is
that the £235 charge is to cover the enforcement agent’s expenses for exploring the possibility of
any actions that are open to them (payment arrangement, taking control of goods, etc.). If so, that
route was deliberately avoided but the fee applied which suggests fraud.

It is quite clear from the enclosed notice that Jacobs are saying that goods have already been taken
control of and a further fee for removing them is being threatened. However, no goods have been
taken control of and whoever left the notice did not even attempt to.

In addition to investigating the above it should also be discovered whether the reason whoever left
the notice avoided contact with me was because that person was not the enforcement agent but
some delivery boy.

Also, I suspect that the Council may have doubts about the suitability of the enforcement agent and
has assigned him to my case knowing that any breach of the standards etc., would likely to be made
known to the Council in a formal complaint such as this. If the Council is using me solely as a
means of catching out a rogue enforcement agent then there is a serious case of misconduct in
public office to be addressed.

Yours sincerely

Enclosure
 6 Europa Boulevard
Birkenhead
Wirral
CH414PE
AutomatedPaymentLine
0330008 0430
Queries
0345601 2692
www.jacobsenforcemenLcom
mail@jacobsenforcement.com
Monday - Friday I Saturday
Barn· Bprn
I
I Barn· 5pm I
Sunday
Barn -1prn
JAC Enforcement Agents
ss
to Charge
-
. ~---
Jacobs Ref No.
----
-
30/10/2015
North
Council
18310631East
550:""--- TaxLincs Council
Gi'imsor;-DN3Z1l
Debt Type -
Due To Ref
Council
Address
Liability No.Date
giving
Order Rise
Name: Mr 1\ __~n

Address:
_~~ ~t, Grimsby, DN32
~'"'"

/"-

I Date 'L-p"') /,/" // "! .~,,~q'"

Further to my previous letter, as your balance remains unpaid, I am making the necessary
arrangements to start removal proceedings.

This process will incur additional fees for the removal, transport and storage of your goods.

If the goods do not clear your debt in full, the Council may choose to take this matter further.

Please note: Once we return the cases, the Local Authority have the power to apply to the
Magistrates Court for a Committal Summons. Unpaid Council Tax can result in a custodial
sentence.

Please contact me MR. F. MENZIES immediately on 07855741394

Name: Mr 1\ ____ ~-.nUl.1.

Address:
_~~o~.-v-resceTIt, Grimsby, DN32
 Page 1 of 1

From: " "< @gmail.com>

To: "Res - Customer Services" <Res-CustomerServices@nelincs.gov.uk>
Cc: <chiefconstable@humberside.pnn.police.uk>; <pcc@humberside.pnn.police.uk>;
<melanie.onn.mp@parliament.uk>
Sent: 23 July 2018 11:06
Attach: Summons 15 Sept 2015.JPG
Subject: Re: Stage 1 Complaint, ref 10117/1819

Dear Ms Beharrell

Please find scan of an envelope attached containing the summons associated with this matter dated 15
September 2015.

The nature of the council's business is obvious by the way the summons has been positioned in the envelope,
i.e., enough of the heading "SUMMONS FOR NON-PAYMENT OF COUNCIL TAX" is visible through the
envelope window.

I made the decision not to raise this as a concern at the time in order to reduce just by a token amount the
wholly excessive amount of my time taken dealing with the council's maladministration (and worse).

I now think given the nature of the present complaint it is appropriate that the council now deal with it.

Yours sincerely

23/07/2018
Our Ref: NELC/10117/1819
Enquiries: Neil Smith
Direct Dial: 01472 325970
E-mail: neil.sm ith@nelincs.gov.uk

~lIrfI~,~.~-·-
~ Date 08.08.2018
Grimsby,
North East Lincolnshire,
DN32 C - I
-~-~-

Private and Confidential

Dear Mr L... it

I am writing in response to your stage 1 complaint dated the 17 July 2018. As my role of
investigating officer it is my responsibility to investigate your complaint and seek to resolve
matters.

I have spoken to relevant personnel and read the supporting documentation as part of the
investigation process. I will now attempt to address each of your concerns in turn.

Complaint 1: The delivering of a Notice of Enforcement by North East Lincolnshire

Councils approved enforcement agents Jacobs and the Enforcement Fee charged.

I can make you aware that I have spoken with Jacobs Enforcement Agent and they have sent
the following report regarding their actions.

Case Summary

• The above account was issued to us to collect on your behalf in May 2018 and in line
with regulations the case progressed through Compliance; incurring a fee of £75.00.
This meant that the statutory Notice of Enforcement was issued to Mr _. :t on the
22nd May 2018, which requested that he contact our office to prevent further recovery
action being taken and also advising of the fee for £235.00 that would be incurred
should this action be necessary.

• It is not a requirement for us to issue further communications once the statutory Notice
of Enforcement has been sent. However to try and avoid the attendance of an
Enforcement Agent and the associated fees of at least £235.00, two further non
statutory letters were sent to him on the 1st and 11th June 2018. In an attempt to
encourage contact however this proved unsuccessful.

• The case progressed to the Enforcement Stage as Mr C··':..•d failed to contact us and
our Enforcement Agent Mr Menzies was correctly allocated on the 26th June 2018
with the instruction to visit his property to collect the full outstanding amount or to
remove goods for sale at auction.

Information, Governance and Complaints Team

Municipal Offices, Town Hall Square, Grimsby, North East Lincolnshire. DN311HU
 • He made his first visit to the property on the 10th July 2018 at 06:20 but was unable to
make contact with anyone so our Agent left a letter requesting that Mr ~.··...,tt contact
him direct in order to make payment As warned in our previous corresporldence the
Enforcement Fee of £235.00 was correctly raised at this point

Outcome

We have noted the concerns raised by Mr ,....,J regarding the location in which he found the
letter left by Mr Menzies on the 10th July 2018.

We can confirm that all our Enforcement Agents wear video badges and record all of their
visits from approaching the premises to returning to their vehicle and this is whether contact is
made or not As such we have been able to watch the footage from Mr Menzies visit on the
10th July 2018.

The video footage clearly shows that when Mr Menzies arrived at the property that he was
unable to gain access through the main door to the building and as such he posted a letter in
a sealed envelope through the slight gap in the doorframe.

We advise that if an Enforcement Agent is unable to gain access to the appropriate letterbox
at a property they are allowed to leave the letter in a safe place visible to the addressee. No
specific details relating to the account would be visible unless the letter was opened by
someone other than Mr=-~ ...<;{TI--howeverthe letters are always left in sealed envelopes so
should only be opened by the addressee.

The Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013 state:

Method of giving notice and who must give it

8.-(1) Notice of enforcement must be given-

(d)where there is no letterbox, by affixing the notice at or in a place where it is likely

to come to the attention of the debtor; .

The above regulations state that notice can be fixed or placed somewhere where it is likely to
come to the attention of the addressee and as such Mr Menzies has acted correctly in the
delivery of his letter.

We are somewhat puzzled by Mr C···· _,,,sstatement that the letter left by Mr Menzies states
that goods have been taken control of as this is incorrect The letter merely advises that
further fees would be incurred should removal of goods take place.

With reference to Mr G_"':_« s concerns regarding the Enforcement Fee of £235.00 that has
been incurred.

As an Enforcement Agency the fees we raise are set by Parliament and not by ourselves or
you the Local Authority. They are fixed stage fees that have been incurred correctly and are
prescribed under the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014.

The Enforcement Stage Fee of £235.00 is raised upon the first visit to the relevant property
by an Enforcement Agent A case will move to the Enforcement Stage either because the
person named on the account has failed to contact us within the specified timescale, or
because they have defaulted on any arrangements they have made with us. For larger
balances and multiple cases, please note an additional fee of 7.5% of the debt over £1 ,500 is
charged on top of the £235.00. In this case, the account progressed to the Enforcement
Stage because Mr r j
failed to respond to our attempts to correspond with him.
Outcome:
I do not uphold this part of your complaint as Jacobs Enforcement Agents have acted
in adherence to the regulations with regards to the delivery of the notice and the
charging of fees.

Complaint 2: The Summons received dated 15th September 2015.

Although you have provided a scanned copy of the document you received, it is not possible
for me to independently verify if it arrived in the post that way. Also due to the fact that this
matter is now nearly 3 years of age it would be deemed as out of scope for us to investigate.

I can make you aware that processes and procedures are in place to make sure that post is
handled correctly, however I will issue a reminder to staff to ensure appropriate steps
continue to be taken.

Outcome:
I am unable to make a finding with regards to this part of your complaint as it is not
possible to verify that the document arrived at your address that way.

As part of our efforts to continually improve services we consider learning from complaints to
be an important part of developing our services to the community. Should you feel that your
complaint has not been satisfactorily resolved, you can escalate to stage 2 of our complaints
process where it will be reviewed by a senior officer. Please contact the complaints team
should you wish to take your complaint to the next stage at the address below, by telephone
on (01472) 326426 or email res-customerservices@nelincs.gov.uk.

Yours sincerely

Neil Smith
North East Lincolnshire Council

Information, Governance and Complaints Team

Municipal Offices, Town Hall Square, Grimsby, North East Lincolnshire. DN311HU
North East Lincolnshire Council
Finance Department Grimsby
Civic Offices Knoll Street North East Lincolnshire
Cleethorpes DN32
North East Lincolnshire
DN35 8LN

19 August 2018
[Misdated 2016 on original]

Dear Sir/Madam

Re: Criminal negligence in the handling of Complaint (NELC/10117/1819)

This is a new complaint, not a continuation of the complaint referred to above. I will however be
expressing my dissatisfaction about the outcome of that matter and escalating it to stage 2 of the
council’s complaints process for review.

This complaint is about Mr Smith’s negligence, in the first instance, by passing all responsibility on
to the enforcement contractor to come up with its own excuses in answer to the issues raised.
Although this falls short of the minimum standards for enforcement agents1 it is not specifically
why I allege criminal negligence, rather it is because Mr Smith has simply accepted the dubious
responses on which he has based his decision to determine that the concerns were groundless and
not worthy of upholding.

It has also not gone unnoticed that a number of the salient points were not addressed by the
council’s contractor yet it is evident that Mr Smith did not challenge this failure. The Council
claims to have regard to the ‘Nolan Principles of Conduct Underpinning Public Life’ which are the
basis of the ethical standards expected of public office holders. However, there is no evidence in the
complaint response that these have been applied to challenge the disreputable behaviour, particular
the third of the seven principles (Objectivity)2.

Requirement to refer complaint to Monitoring Officer but was evidently not

The question of fraud has been raised in the complaint, so according to the council's corporate
feedback policy3, the matter should have been referred to the Monitoring Officer and dealt with in

1
The Ministry of Justice’s ‘Taking Control of Goods: National Standards April 2014’
2
Objectivity – Holders of public office must act and take decisions impartially, fairly and on merit, using the best
evidence and without discrimination or bias
3
Appendix B – Complaints dealt with through a different process
line with the Council's Policy for Raising a Concern (Incorporating the Whistleblowing Policy).
The policy specifies4 that the matter, depending on the nature of the concern, may be investigated
internally, referred to the Police or external Auditor etc. It is doubtful that the whistleblowing policy
was adhered to in any respect because the responsibility for handling the complaint was delegated
to the enforcement contractor.

Accepting what video footage revealed without verification

The complaint centred on the data protection aspect of leaving letters of a sensitive nature lying
around for others to see and whether charging £235 for an enforcement visit made with the view to
obtain payment was fraudulent in nature, if, as was evidently the case, making contact was
deliberately avoided.

The question of whether the £235 enforcement fee was correctly raised and lawful at the particular
stage of proceedings was never raised as an issue in the complaint, rather it was the dubious
circumstances surrounding the charging of it when evidently no contact was attempted.

Therefore only part of one of the four paragraphs in the complaint outcome under the heading
“Case Summary” was remotely relevant to the concerns raised in the complaint which is quoted
below:

“He made his first visit to the property on the 10th July 2018 at 06:20 but was unable to
make contact with anyone so our Agent left a letter requesting that Mr contact him
direct in order to make payment. As warned in our previous correspondence the
Enforcement Fee of £235.00 was correctly raised at this point.”

The outcome letter goes on to say with regards the video footage as follows:

“We can confirm that all our Enforcement Agents wear video badges and record all of their
visits from approaching the premises to returning to their vehicle and this is whether contact
is made or not. As such we have been able to watch the footage from Mr Menzies visit on
the 10th July 2018.

The video footage clearly shows that when Mr Menzies arrived at the property that he was
unable to gain access through the main door to the building and as such he posted a letter in
a sealed envelope through the slight gap in the doorframe.”

There is no evidence that Mr Smith asked for the video footage to verify the contractor’s version of
events. This is the minimum one would expect in the initial stages of an investigation given that the

4
Page 9 - How the Council will respond to a disclosure
concerns have been stated to be that I had been in all day on 10 July 2018 when the letter was left
but had not heard the buzzer incorporated into the intercom system located outside the building.

Mr Smith also accepted that the letter was posted through a slight gap in the doorframe without
even making enquiries to assess whether passing a letter successfully through the locked door is a
possibility (I attempted and was unable to).

The bailiff contractor claims to have video footage; this would fit the description of ‘best evidence’,
so it was Mr Smith’s duty as a priority to obtain it and independently verify what was captured (the
fairest and most objective way to proceed). It was exactly this (his inability to independently verify
events) which Mr Smith relied on to justify being unable to make a finding in respect of the second
part of the complaint (document revealing through envelope it was a court summons for non-
payment). It is clear evidence of bias to rely on uncorroborated evidence when it fits the council’s
agenda but to dismiss it if supports the complainant’s concerns.

The allegations are strengthened due to the fact that on a previous occasion Mr Smith dealt with one
of the stages of a complaint about a bailiff employed by Rossendale’s who had been unnecessarily
instructed to recover Council Tax. The formal complaint procedure uncovered fraud and other
illegality far exceeding what I first suspected. Rossendale’s actions, all but an illegal seizure of a
vehicle, were defended throughout the whole process which extended to the Chief Executive who
failed to uphold the complaint and was therefore also complicit.

One of the actions defended by Mr Smith was a notice, illegally threatening the removal of goods
and fraudulently demanding £294.50, being left by the bailiff which I found by chance on my way
home wedged outside the entrance to the apartment block of my residence in the slight gap between
the door and doorframe. I reside at the same property as I did then so the security entrance5 is the
same one which in the present matter the bailiff claims to have captured on camera the posting of
the letter through a slight gap in the doorframe. This was a clear breach of the Data Protection Act
1998 as the letter, which was of a sensitive nature containing personal data, could have been
intercepted by any member of the public or could easily have taken off in the breeze.

Mr Smith considered it acceptable (but probably not best practice) for the bailiff to leave the letter
in a way which breached Data Protection laws ‘given the problems with entering the building’.
However, of further concern was his explanation for how two previous letters delivered in person
had gone astray which incurred enforcement fees and I had never seen (his defence against alleged
phantom visits). His rationale was that ‘given the problems with entering the building it was
reasonable to state that if the first 2 Bailiffs left their correspondence the same way [wedged

5
The door has been replaced since the first reported case of mishandled personal data but my attempts both then and
now to pass a letter through slight gaps of the locked door were unsuccessful
outside] then the visits had taken place’. But there was a further anomaly because the officer who
had dealt with the same complaint at the previous stage included the following in her findings in
respect of one of the two alleged phantom visits:

“Further to your correspondence I can advise you that I have carried out further enquiries
with Rossendales into the circumstances surrounding your complaint and am in a position to
respond as follows:-

1) Visit on 15th December 2008, you state you received no notice and had no
knowledge of the bailiff's visit. From information provided I believe you live in a
block of flats, with a security door. The Bailiffs states when he received no reply to
the ringing of the door bell he left a note in an envelope addressed to you under the
security door....”

Acceptance that the regulations were adhered to

Mr Smith has evidently made no decision himself and simply taken what the enforcement
contractor has told him to be correct.

The enforcement contractor justified leaving the letter where it was easily accessible to members of
the public with the nature of his visit revealed through the envelope window on the basis that it was
in accordance with the ‘Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013’. Regulation 8 of those
regulations sets out all the permissible methods for ‘giving notice’ and sub-paragraph (1)(d) of
regulation 8 provides that ‘where there is no letterbox, by affixing the notice at or in a place where
it is likely to come to the attention of the debtor’.

Mr Smith has evidently not questioned the fact that regulation 8 refers to the “Notice of
enforcement”; this was delivered by Royal Mail in accordance with sub-paragraph (1)(d) dated 22
May 2018. My complaint surrounds the hand delivered letter (threat of removal) which was left on
10 July 2018 and is the first Enforcement Stage visit in respect of which a fee of £235.00 is raised.

But even if regulation 8 was referable to hand delivered Enforcement Stage notices, sub-paragraph
(1)(d) provides for ‘where there is no letterbox’. I have a letter box, but putting that to one side as
well, if leaving the notice in a communal place would almost guarantee to disclose the purpose of
their visit to neighbours and anyone who visited the building, then the Ministry of Justice’s
guidance which sets out the minimum standards for enforcement agents was not adhered to. The
council was alerted to para 52 of the National Standards in my complaint which is as follows:

“Enforcement agents should, so far as it is practical, avoid disclosing the purpose of their
visit to anyone other than the debtor or a third party nominated by the debtor, for example an
 advice agency representative. Where the debtor is not seen, the relevant documents must be
left at the address in a sealed envelope addressed to the debtor”

It is not good enough to claim that the serving of a notice complied with data protection laws just
because it was left in accordance with one of the methods described under sub-paragraph (1) of
regulation 8. The overarching consideration has to be whether the chosen method would meet the
minimum standards set out in paragraph 52 of the government guidance and because of where the
letter was found and it was obvious without opening it that it concerned enforcement the action fell
short of the minimum standards for enforcement agents.

It has been noted the difference between the envelope type used when a letter is sent by the
enforcement contractor via Royal Mail, and the notice delivered in person, which has a bearing on
the provision of regulation 8 (method of giving notice). The “Notice of enforcement” to which
regulation 8 specifically refers was delivered by Royal Mail date 22 May 2018 and was in a
window-less envelope and gave no clue as to the nature of the letter. However, the hand delivered
notice threatening removal of goods was windowed through which my name, address, flat number
and in red bold capitals the warning, “URGENT - DO NOT IGNORE” were all visible. This
provides insight into why a letter revealing the nature of the visit can not be left in a place where it
can be seen by any other person, or be permissible to do so by virtue of regulation 8 of the Taking
Control of Goods Regulations 2013.

Summons of 15 September 2015

Mr Smith also handled the second part of my complaint negligently concerning the court summons
I received in September 2015 for alleged non-payment of Council Tax. The unpaid amount wrongly
granted on the court order relating to the September 2015 summons is the alleged debt which the
enforcement agent is presently pursuing and therefore logically belongs the same complaint.

The concern was that the nature of the council’s business was obvious by the way the summons had
been positioned in the envelope, i.e., enough of the heading "SUMMONS FOR NON-PAYMENT
OF COUNCIL TAX" was visible through the envelope window.

Mr Smith has demonstrated inconsistency, a strong degree of bias and a lack of objectivity in his
approach to dealing with the matter. He supports his inability to make a finding based on being
unable to independently verify that the summons arrived as the scan I provided to him shows. His
approach is at odds with the way he accepted the enforcement contractor’s account of what was
captured by the agent’s bodycam without obtaining and independently verifying it for himself.
Leaving aside the bias, it was open to Mr Smith to make further enquiries and ask if it was possible
I provide further proof to strengthen my claim that the summons arrived as I allege. I have retained
the original summons and it is obvious from the single fold that the document had not been
manipulated to falsely position the text. Although I don’t have the original envelope it can be
clearly seen from placing it in an envelope recently sent by the council (same size and type) that the
text visible through the envelope is true to the scan.

The number of summonses sent each year typically approaches 20,000 so it is likely that the
enveloping of the summons is automated to some degree and would therefore not likely to have
been just my letter that revealed through the envelope that it was a court summons. Of course, if the
process is manual then it would have been equally significant if it was a deliberate and vindictive
act to make it known to others that I was being summonsed to the court for non-payment of Council
Tax and made more serious due to the fact that my Council Tax payments had been up to date with
no outstanding monies owed.

Past negligence in addressing the mishandling of my Council Tax account

Mr Smith has neglected to resolve the issues which have led to initially Rossendales and now
Jacobs enforcement contractors harassing me for monies which are not owed on the several
occasions he has been presented the opportunity to do so. For the avoidance of doubt, the money
which the enforcement agents have been and are presently pursuing is not legitimately owed and I
have evidence of the council engineering the debt. The Magistrates’ court’s decision to grant a
liability order was so irrational that no fair minded and informed observer, having considered the
facts, could have come to any other conclusion that the judge was biased. There were three main
defence grounds and each was perversely dismissed by the District Judge.

For example, the judge relied on case law “Devaynes v Noble (1816) 35 ER 781” (Clayton’s case)
to decide in the council’s favour that it was permissible to allocate money I paid in respect of my in-
year Council Tax account to a disputed sum from a previous year’s account, thus subjecting me to
unnecessary recovery action and additional costs etc. The relevant two paragraphs in the council’s
witness statement are numbered 58 & 59 as below:

“58. The case of Devaynes V Noble 1816 merivale 529 (Claytons Case), it established the
basic rule of ‘first-in, first-out’. In further terms payments are presumed to be
appropriated to debts in the order which the debts are incurred. If no election is made
the earliest debts are paid first (NELC7).

59. It is the first item on the debit side of the account, that is discharged, or reduced, by the
first item on the credit side. Devaynes V Noble 1816 merivale 529 *608”
It is scandalous that this case was relied on as it has no relevance to Council Tax. Clayton’s case
involved a banking account, where all the sums paid in form one blended fund; but in the case of
Council Tax liability, the local authority issue a bill each year relating specifically to that year’s
liability, hence they are distinct accounts between which a plain line of separation can be drawn.
The irrelevance of Clayton’s case to Council Tax is evident in the judgments of a number of cases
but is conveniently defined in the 25 edition of ‘Snell’s Principles of Equity’:

‘(c) Rule in Clayton's Case

(1) THE RULE. When there has been no express appropriation, the rule of convenience
known as the rule in Clayton’s Case is sometimes applied. This is confined to cases where
there is an unbroken account between the parties, or “one blended fund,” as in the case of a
current account at a bank or between traders; it does not apply where there is no such
account or fund, but merely distinct and separate debts. The effect of the rule is that in the
absence of any express appropriation, each payment is impliedly appropriated to the earliest
debt that is not statute-barred. “It is the first item of the debit side of the account, that is
discharged, or reduced, by the first item on the credit side. The appropriation is made by the
very act of setting the two items against each other.” In short, “first in, first out the first
payment in is set against the first payment out, and vice versa.’

It is evident from all case authority relevant to the appropriation of payments that when a person is
indebted to another on more than one account it is the debtor’s right to choose which account
monies paid is allocated to and the election may either be expressed or inferred from the
circumstances of the transaction. Therefore, the inference from the circumstances of a transaction
can be just as valid as an election by the debtor to pay specifically on one of several accounts as if
his election were expressed.

It is therefore self-evident that in the case of Council Tax liability (where one account is more
onerous for the debtor than another) that a payment amount which does not identify the debt must
be carried to that account which it is most beneficial to the debtor to reduce. It follows that a debtor
who would be caused the additional burden from recovery action being taken in respect of his in-
year liability as a consequence of payment being appropriated to his arrears, would clearly intend
that his payment be appropriated to his in-year liability to avoid unnecessary additional costs etc.
Evidence of an intent to appropriate would be provided in those particular circumstances to be an
election to pay specifically on the current year’s liability.

Also, if a pattern had emerged of a customer’s payment being made and accepted as credited to a
particular debt then it would be inferred from the nature of the transaction, even if not expressed at
the time by the customer, that he intended to ascribe it to that account.
In what appears to be the most recent and most relevant case, R v Miskin Lower Justices 1953, the
judgment is clear that where an amount obviously relates to a specific liability, it would be an
unwarranted assumption to allocate the payment elsewhere thus an unmatched payment must be
carried to that account which is most beneficial to the debtor to reduce.

This is helpfully set out in the judgment of Caltabiano v Electoral Commission of Qld [2009] QCA
182 (paragraph 110):

‘Similar statements may be found in other cases.51 In R v Miskin Lower; Ex parte Young,52
(which was a case in which there was no express appropriation) Pearson J inferred an
appropriation from circumstances which included that the debtor “would be likely to wish
these payments to be utilized in discharge of the original debt so that he would secure his
release from the committal order”.’

The inference that the debtor would likely have wished his payments to be utilized in discharge of
the original debt was evidently because it was the debt which it was most beneficial to him to
reduce6. It was merely his circumstances that meant discharging the earliest debt was most
beneficial to him; if those circumstances meant that discharging the later debt was most beneficial,
then by the same reasoning the judge would have inferred an appropriation on the basis that the
debtor would have likely wished his payments to have discharged the more recent debt. In other
words, the rule in Clayton’s Case was inconsequential and could not have applied anyway because
as in Council Tax liability the rule does not apply where there is no unbroken account (or blended
fund), but merely distinct and separate debts.

Leaving to one side what the law says about the appropriation of payments. The overwhelming
majority of local authorities have effectively stated on the record that they see it as their duty
(where a customer has arrears from a previous year) to allocate payment to the account which it is
most beneficial to the debtor to reduce and have measures in place to ensure that payments are
allocated to the account which by virtue of that allocation causes the least burden for the debtor.

Some have their systems set so that payments which do not identify the debt are automatically
allocated to the in-year liability and those that don’t carry out checks to ensure that such payments
are reallocated if necessary to the account which it is most beneficial to the debtor to reduce. The
following is a sample of quotes from a small selection of those councils mentioned that comply
with the general principles of the appropriation of payment:

6
There is a reference to two cases (Ephraims v. Jansz and Schokman v. Felsinger) in the judgment of Fernando v.
Fernando (Sri Lankan case around the time of Miskin) ‘in which it was held that where the purpose for which a
payment is made is unspecified “it must be carried to that account which it is most beneficial to the debtor to reduce”.’
 ‘Where a sum is not recognised as a “normal” instalment the system is set to allocate that
payment to current year. The reason for this is to prevent recovery action on the Council Tax
payer’s current year’s debt. By allocating payments to the current year’s debt, and thus
preventing further chargers being applied to the account, the Council is acting in a fiduciary
capacity.’ Croydon Borough Council

“There are procedures in place to check payments credited to previous years arrears. This
involves regular manual checks of payments allocated against previous years, and where it is
clear the payment relates to the current year, the payment is transferred accordingly. A
manual check is also made of Council Tax accounts prior to a summons being issued (and
associated costs being raised), in order to ensure that, where possible, payments which have
made, have been correctly allocated.” Central Bedfordshire Council

“If a payment is received that does not match any instalment value, it will allocate the
payment to the current year. Unspecified current year payments are regularly reviewed
following the automatic allocation to assign payment made for previous years arrangement
to the corresponding year as required.” Bournemouth Borough Council

“if we believe the customers intention was to pay the current year, we would move this to
the current year in order to avoid unnecessary recovery action.” Solihull Metropolitan
Borough Council

“in the case of unallocated payments there are procedures in place to seek to identify
whether a payment should be credited to the current year or previous year liability, in order
to seek to mitigate the risk of the customer of incurring unnecessary recovery action in
respect of the current financial year.” Torbay Borough Council

“If in the course of dealing with a Council Tax account (be that by Revenue staff looking at
the account, or due to customer contact regarding it) payments were identified as allocated
to an incorrect year, then the payments would be re-allocated to the relevant year. Should
the allocation to the oldest debt have caused a summons to be issued, this would be
withdrawn and any associated costs removed.” South Hams District Council

“The Council has procedures in place to check each case that has been raised for summons
action prior to service. The accounts are checked to see if the summons to be issued, are
done so correctly. Specifically officers are asked to look for payments made in the current
financial year and to check the allocation of these payments. This is to prevent any undue
summons and costs being raised as well as to ensure that payments are being allocated to the
correct debt, with an emphasis on the current year's liability.” Hillingdon Borough Council

Returning to Mr Smiths refusal to resolve the matter, it was clearly negligent, and criminally so
given all the serious consequences that not dealing with it has had over the protracted period of
time. He and other officers have played the system by using the court as its excuse for refusing to
deal with formal complaints to have the injustice remedied. Within those complaints the council has
been asked to apply under the legislation that has been specifically enacted giving Magistrates’
Courts powers to quash a liability order if it was satisfied that one should not have been made, i.e.,
where there is no dispute about the facts. For example, Mr Smith stated the following in a letter
dated 21 December 2015 responding to a complaint:

“your complaint does not fall within the scope of the Councils Corporate Complaints
procedure as the Liability Order was granted by the Grimsby Magistrates Court at a hearing
that you were present at”

This is outrageous given that the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992
have the following provision at regulation 36A (Quashing of liability orders):

“(1) Where—

(a) a magistrates' court has made a liability order pursuant to regulation 34(6), and

(b) the authority on whose application the liability order was made considers that the order
should not have been made, the authority may apply to a magistrates’ court to have the
liability order quashed.”

Subsequent to the court order being granted, Mr Smith and his colleagues have been provided more
evidence as it has become available which proves incontrovertibly that the order should not have
been made yet presumably for their own perverse satisfaction they have continued to exploit the
court’s decision to criminally pursue an engineered debt.

The most serious of my three main appeal grounds concerned the council’s additional justification
for misallocating payments to the aforementioned disputed sum from a previous year’s account to
engineer the debt. The council presented perjured evidence to the court to persuade the judge that it
was entitled to allocate payment to the disputed costs (leaving the balance of the year’s account that
should have been reduced in default). The Council had suspended recovery of the sum being
appealed in the high court until the case had been determined, however, it falsely claimed in its
signed statement of truth that it believed the appeal had been withdrawn therefore the disputed costs
were no longer suspended. The appeal had never been withdrawn and it is beyond all reasonable
doubt that the council knew it had not been withdrawn from incriminating evidence accompanying
its witness statement.

If that evidence was not enough, it was discovered subsequent to the Council Tax liability hearing
that 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 which backs up conclusively that the appeal was never
withdrawn. The council are in position of all the evidence in this mater.
It is reasonable to say that Mr Smith’s motivation for refusing to deal with the complaint is that if it
were properly investigated the seriousness of the council’s actions would have to be officially
acknowledged and remedied. The easy way out has been to hide behind the decision of the
Magistrates’ court regardless of the fact that Mr Smith and his colleagues know full well the order
should not have been made.

Yours sincerely

.
North East Lincolnshire Council
Finance Department Grimsby
Civic Offices Knoll Street North East Lincolnshire
Cleethorpes DN32
North East Lincolnshire
DN35 8LN

20 August 2018

Dear Sir/Madam

Re: Council tax Ref: 550 – Formal Complaint (stage two)

I am writing to escalate this matter to stage 2 of the council’s complaints process for review as I am
entirely dissatisfied about the outcome and the way it has been dealt with.

All the responsibility has been passed on to the enforcement contractor to deal with the issues raised
which is not in accordance with the minimum standards for enforcement agents1. Mr Smith has
simply accepted the dubious responses on which he has based his decision to determine that the
concerns were groundless and not worthy of upholding.

A number of the salient points were not addressed by the council’s contractor yet it is evident that
Mr Smith did not challenge this failure. The Council claims to have regard to the ‘Nolan Principles
of Conduct Underpinning Public Life’ which are the basis of the ethical standards expected of
public office holders. However, there is no evidence in the complaint response that these have been
applied to challenge the disreputable behaviour, particular the third of the seven principles
(Objectivity)2.

Requirement to refer complaint to Monitoring Officer but was evidently not

The question of fraud has been raised in the complaint, so according to the council's corporate
feedback policy3, the matter should have been referred to the Monitoring Officer and dealt with in
line with the Council's Policy for Raising a Concern (Incorporating the Whistleblowing Policy).
The policy specifies4 that the matter, depending on the nature of the concern, may be investigated

1
The Ministry of Justice’s ‘Taking Control of Goods: National Standards April 2014’
2
Objectivity – Holders of public office must act and take decisions impartially, fairly and on merit, using the best
evidence and without discrimination or bias
3
Appendix B – Complaints dealt with through a different process
4
Page 9 - How the Council will respond to a disclosure
internally, referred to the Police or external Auditor etc. It is doubtful that the whistleblowing policy
was adhered to in any respect because the responsibility for handling the complaint was delegated
to the enforcement contractor.

Accepting what video footage revealed without verification

The complaint centred on the data protection aspect of leaving letters of a sensitive nature lying
around for others to see and whether charging £235 for an enforcement visit made with the view to
obtain payment was fraudulent in nature, if, as was evidently the case, making contact was
deliberately avoided.

The question of whether the £235 enforcement fee was correctly raised and lawful at the particular
stage of proceedings was never raised as an issue in the complaint, rather it was the dubious
circumstances surrounding the charging of it when evidently no contact was attempted.

Therefore only part of one of the four paragraphs in the complaint outcome under the heading
“Case Summary” was remotely relevant to the concerns raised in the complaint which is quoted
below:

“He made his first visit to the property on the 10th July 2018 at 06:20 but was unable to
make contact with anyone so our Agent left a letter requesting that Mr contact him
direct in order to make payment. As warned in our previous correspondence the
Enforcement Fee of £235.00 was correctly raised at this point.”

The outcome letter goes on to say with regards the video footage as follows:

“We can confirm that all our Enforcement Agents wear video badges and record all of their
visits from approaching the premises to returning to their vehicle and this is whether contact
is made or not. As such we have been able to watch the footage from Mr Menzies visit on
the 10th July 2018.

The video footage clearly shows that when Mr Menzies arrived at the property that he was
unable to gain access through the main door to the building and as such he posted a letter in
a sealed envelope through the slight gap in the doorframe.”

There is no evidence that Mr Smith asked for the video footage to verify the contractor’s version of
events. This is the minimum one would expect in the initial stages of an investigation given that the
concerns have been stated to be that I had been in all day on 10 July 2018 when the letter was left
but had not heard the buzzer incorporated into the intercom system located outside the building.
Mr Smith also accepted that the letter was posted through a slight gap in the doorframe without
even making enquiries to assess whether passing a letter successfully through the locked door is a
possibility (I attempted and was unable to).

The bailiff contractor claims to have video footage; this would fit the description of ‘best evidence’,
so it was Mr Smith’s duty as a priority to obtain it and independently verify what was captured (the
fairest and most objective way to proceed). It was exactly this (his inability to independently verify
events) which Mr Smith relied on to justify being unable to make a finding in respect of the second
part of the complaint (document revealing through envelope it was a court summons for non-
payment). It is clear evidence of bias to rely on uncorroborated evidence when it fits the council’s
agenda but to dismiss it if supports the complainant’s concerns.

Acceptance that the regulations were adhered to

Mr Smith has evidently made no decision himself and simply taken what the enforcement
contractor has told him to be correct.

The enforcement contractor justified leaving the letter where it was easily accessible to members of
the public with the nature of his visit revealed through the envelope window on the basis that it was
in accordance with the ‘Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013’. Regulation 8 of those
regulations sets out all the permissible methods for ‘giving notice’ and sub-paragraph (1)(d) of
regulation 8 provides that ‘where there is no letterbox, by affixing the notice at or in a place where
it is likely to come to the attention of the debtor’.

Mr Smith has evidently not questioned the fact that regulation 8 refers to the “Notice of
enforcement”; this was delivered by Royal Mail in accordance with sub-paragraph (1)(d) dated 22
May 2018. My complaint surrounds the hand delivered letter (threat of removal) which was left on
10 July 2018 and is the first Enforcement Stage visit in respect of which a fee of £235.00 is raised.

But even if regulation 8 was referable to hand delivered Enforcement Stage notices, sub-paragraph
(1)(d) provides for ‘where there is no letterbox’. I have a letter box, but putting that to one side as
well, if leaving the notice in a communal place would almost guarantee to disclose the purpose of
their visit to neighbours and anyone who visited the building, then the Ministry of Justice’s
guidance which sets out the minimum standards for enforcement agents was not adhered to. The
council was alerted to para 52 of the National Standards in my complaint which is as follows:

“Enforcement agents should, so far as it is practical, avoid disclosing the purpose of their
visit to anyone other than the debtor or a third party nominated by the debtor, for example an
 advice agency representative. Where the debtor is not seen, the relevant documents must be
left at the address in a sealed envelope addressed to the debtor”

It is not good enough to claim that the serving of a notice complied with data protection laws just
because it was left in accordance with one of the methods described under sub-paragraph (1) of
regulation 8. The overarching consideration has to be whether the chosen method would meet the
minimum standards set out in paragraph 52 of the government guidance and because of where the
letter was found and it was obvious without opening it that it concerned enforcement the action fell
short of the minimum standards for enforcement agents.

It has been noted the difference between the envelope type used when a letter is sent by the
enforcement contractor via Royal Mail, and the notice delivered in person, which has a bearing on
the provision of regulation 8 (method of giving notice). The “Notice of enforcement” to which
regulation 8 specifically refers was delivered by Royal Mail date 22 May 2018 and was in a
window-less envelope and gave no clue as to the nature of the letter. However, the hand delivered
notice threatening removal of goods was windowed through which my name, address, flat number
and in red bold capitals the warning, “URGENT - DO NOT IGNORE” were all visible. This
provides insight into why a letter revealing the nature of the visit can not be left in a place where it
can be seen by any other person, or be permissible to do so by virtue of regulation 8 of the Taking
Control of Goods Regulations 2013.

Summons of 15 September 2015

Mr Smith also handled the second part of my complaint negligently concerning the court summons
I received in September 2015 for alleged non-payment of Council Tax. The unpaid amount wrongly
granted on the court order relating to the September 2015 summons is the alleged debt which the
enforcement agent is presently pursuing and therefore logically belongs the same complaint.

The concern was that the nature of the council’s business was obvious by the way the summons had
been positioned in the envelope, i.e., enough of the heading "SUMMONS FOR NON-PAYMENT
OF COUNCIL TAX" was visible through the envelope window.

Mr Smith has demonstrated inconsistency, a strong degree of bias and a lack of objectivity in his
approach to dealing with the matter. He supports his inability to make a finding based on being
unable to independently verify that the summons arrived as the scan I provided to him shows. His
approach is at odds with the way he accepted the enforcement contractor’s account of what was
captured by the agent’s bodycam without obtaining and independently verifying it for himself.
Leaving aside the bias, it was open to Mr Smith to make further enquiries and ask if it was possible
I provide further proof to strengthen my claim that the summons arrived as I allege. I have retained
the original summons and it is obvious from the single fold that the document had not been
manipulated to falsely position the text. Although I don’t have the original envelope it can be
clearly seen from placing it in an envelope recently sent by the council (same size and type) that the
text visible through the envelope is true to the scan.

The number of summonses sent each year typically approaches 20,000 so it is likely that the
enveloping of the summons is automated to some degree and would therefore not likely to have
been just my letter that revealed through the envelope that it was a court summons. Of course, if the
process is manual then it would have been equally significant if it was a deliberate and vindictive
act to make it known to others that I was being summonsed to the court for non-payment of Council
Tax and made more serious due to the fact that my Council Tax payments had been up to date with
no outstanding monies owed.

Yours sincerely

.
 Our Ref: NELC/10117/1819
Enquiries: Ian Hollingsworth
Direct Dial: 01472 326426
E-mail: Res-customerservices@nelincs.gov.uk

Via email: @gmail.com

22nd August 2018

Private and Confidential

Dear Mr

I am writing to confirm that following your request to the Council received on 20th August
2018, your complaint has now been escalated to stage 2 of the corporate complaints
procedure. It will be investigated by Guy Lonsdale, on behalf of the Chief Executive.
Please note if you have any evidence or information relevant to your complaint this should
be provided to ensure a full investigation is carried out.

I note that you have submitted two letters of complaint. Having reviewed these letters they
both relate to the same issue and therefore will be considered in one investigation.

I can confirm that Mr Lonsdale has had no previous involvement with your case and will
conduct a thorough examination of the issues you have raised. The timescale for
responding to this complaint is within 25 working days from the date of this letter. If for any
reason we are unable to meet this deadline I will contact you again with a new response
date.

To protect your privacy, only service managers and officers involved with the handling and
processing of complaints will have access to the details of the progress of your complaint.
The reference number for this complaint is NELC/10117/1819 and, for your own security,
you should quote it whenever you contact us on this matter. If your circumstances change
and there is any reason we cannot use the contact details you have provided us with
please ensure that you make us aware immediately. Unless indicated we will send all
correspondence to the address or email provided.

Your complaint will be treated in strict confidence, with all personal information provided
processed in accordance with the Data Protection Legislation. As part of the investigation
we will review the records and information held relevant to your complaint.

I enclose guidelines which explain how your complaint will be handled. If you have any
queries, please contact me on the telephone number above.

Yours sincerely

Ian Hollingsworth
Information Governance and Complaints

Information, Governance and Complaints Team

Municipal Offices, Town Hall Square, Grimsby, North East Lincolnshire. DN31 1HU
 Page 1 of 1

From: " "< @gmail.com>

To: "Res - Customer Services" <Res-CustomerServices@nelincs.gov.uk>
Cc: <chiefconstable@humberside.pnn.police.uk>; <pcc@humberside.pnn.police.uk>;
<melanie.onn.mp@parliament.uk>; <confidential@sfo.gsi.gov.uk>
Sent: 22 August 2018 14:43
Attach: 20180821_S2_Ack.pdf
Subject: Fw: Stage 2 complaint reference NELC/10117/1819

Dear Mr Hollingsworth

I explicitly stated in my letter of 19 August 2018 that it was a new and separate complaint about Mr Smiths
criminal negligence in handling the matter and as such the concerns require being dealt with line with the
Council's Policy for Raising a Concern in the circumstances when a criminal allegation is made.

You have also stated that Mr Lonsdale has been referred the complaint. I have concerns that this person may
be the same Mr Lonsdale who is an employee (or was) of North East Lincolnshire Council's auditor KPMG
and was involved in a sham investigation which helpfully covered up fraud for its client.

Please ensure that my criminal allegations are dealt with as a separate matter to the stage 2 complaint in line
with the Council's Policy for Raising a Concern (Incorporating the Whistleblowing Policy) and also the stage 2
complaint is dealt with in accordance with that same policy.

Yours sincerely

22/08/2018
 Page 1 of 1

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

To: " "< @gmail.com>
Sent: 29 August 2018 15:46
Subject: RE: Stage 2 complaint reference NELC/10117/1819

Dear Mr

Thank you for your further correspondence in relation to complaint reference 10117_1819. Due to the
nature of your allegations, including those comments made regarding the nominated investigating officer,
consideration is being given as to how the Council should address this.

We will contact you once a decision has been made.

Kind regards

Ian Hollingsworth

Information Governance and Complaints

29/08/2018
 QorRef:
Enquiries; fan Hollingsworth
Direct Dial:
E-mail:
01472 326426 li!l;~1
Res-custornerservicestli!nelincs.gov.uk North East Lincolnshire
tlmicafcomn'tissmnmgGroup

Mrr~_~_
By emaiJ: elt-· .<:If"V -,,,g@gmail.com
2ih September 2018

Private and Confidential

------------

Dear Mr ~. 'tt

I refer to the letter dated 22nd August 2018 in which it Was confirrned that your complaint
had, been escalated to the final stage of the Council's complaints procedure. The issues
you have raised have been investigated which has included a review of the stage 1
response. This investigation has been undertaken independently of the officers that have
previously handled your complaint.

The enclosed investigating officer's report.details the findings of this investigation which'
consider has been correctly and fairly carried out inacc()rdance with the Council's
Feedback Policy.

If you are not satisfied with this response and the outcome of your complaint, you have the
right to take the matter to the Local Government Ombudsman, whose contact details are as
follows:

LGO Advice Team

The local Government Ombudsman
PO Box 4771
Coventry CV40EH

Tel: 08456021983
Fax: 02476820001

I would like to thank you for bringing these issues to the Council's attention. This has been,
of necessity,aforrnal response driven by our Feedback Policy and procedures, designed to
ensure full, fair and impartial examination of concerns which arise. 1 am personally always
very keen to see how we can improve our services and learning from complaints is one
way of achieving this. I appreciate this may not be the response you had hoped for. 1 am
hoping that you will accept that this matter has had proper consideration.

Mun.icioafOffites. Town Hail Sauare. Grlmsbv.North East lincolnshire. ON311HU

 North East Lincolnshire Council

5tage2CorporateCompJaint Investigation

PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL

Director: Sharon Wroot - Finance, Operations and Resources

! Council Tax
>""'~-"'-'-"""--'-""-'--'----'-'~-rHeleh'-i~~cs>~oi~ectoro'fGove;rt~rtce: Dem-ocraciand'Com'munity~-----'-'-"
"~~,~~~~:"g~n:.~~~~~~.~,-Lsn~~~~m.~mL~_~~.~._._
....
_~~..~".~,
....
~.,_.
~~__ "~_"'~">''''~_"'''''~"'~~''~~'''_''"~~~''''_~''_'''~'_.~, •.

Complaint Reference: I NElC/l0117/1819

'_'~'~D'_~~""_'''''''''- __~'~.~,_.~,_"--_. __ .~"",_"""."_~~,"",~"_"",,,,,,.""""""~'''~'~~.~D_''>'''''''
__ ~__ ~~,~,,'~''''''~~'~_~'~'''
__ '''''''''''''''_'''''='''''~'''"'....,,~..,__ =~.~ __ ~~~ ...,~~~_.,--,~ __ . ,.__ ..,__ ~.,_.~ __ .._~~_.~_,.~._.,,~

Final decision of investigating officer:

I am satisfied that an enforcement letter was left by an Enforcement Agentina place where it was likely
to, and did, come to the attention of the debtor. The Agents used by the COlll1cH(Jacobs) discharged
their responsibilitiesinaccordance with the releVant regulations. The complaint is not upheld.

Sumrnaryofcomplaint:

A complaint was submitted by letter dated 1 July 201S (misdated 2016) and (:oncerned the delivery of ih
an enforcement notice dated 10th July, which was delivered by a Jacobs Enforcement Agent toa
communal area, which serves the complainant's flat,

The complainal1t expressed dissatisfaction with the outcome of the stage 1 investigation by letter dated
20th August 2018. Further assertions were made relating in part to the complaint challenging the
objectivity of the investigating officer and his acceptance of the Enforcing Agent's account of events.

How thecornplaint was considered:

The investigating officer spoke to relevant personnel, read supporting documentation and considered
the case summaryreferel1ced in his letter of 8th August2018 to the complainant.

Findings:

I have spoken to the investigating officer, reviewed the supporting documentation, reviewed the video
evidence from Jacobs and find that the complaint is notupheld for the reasons previously given.

Regarding the subsequent communications from the complail1ant challenging the objectivity of the
investigating officer, he appropriately sought an explanation from Jacobs and this was given. The video
Was reviewed as part of the Stage 2 review and was consistel1twiththeir report.

I see no justification for a separate investigation of the complaint regarding MrSmith, lam satisfied that
he correctly concluded not to uphold the complaint having followed appropriate steps and having
reached a balanced and reasonable conclusion.

The Complainant is kl10wn to the Council. Spurious and cavalier comments have been made agaInst
professionals and officers, both within the Council and other organisations.
These comments make Cl veiled reference to criminal activity and allege professional misconduct and
have been formaUyconsidered 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 theseallegationsj the Council wlH
trust them to consider as they deem appropriate.

Oetails offinal recomlTlendations~

There are no recommendationsln respect of the complaint which is not upheld.

Investigators decision on behalf of the Chief Executive:

Helen Isaacs

Director;

Sharon Wroot