Council simply raised an 'invoice' and made 'follow up enquiries'

As reported recently in the Grimsby Telegraph, a spokesman for North East Lincolnshire Council stated they had contacted the leader of The Grimsby Generalist Party, Mr James Stinson, who refused to pay his annual Council Tax bill of £992 in protest of the Council Tax increase of 3% for that year and warned him of the consequences of not paying his Council Tax.

The Council's spokesman also indicated that Mr Stinson's refusal to pay the arrears could result in a summons to Grimsby Magistrates' Court for which he could incur the maximum penalty for wilful non-payment of council tax of up to 90 days imprisonment and that the local authority also have a range of out-of-court sanctions including attachment of earnings or power to send in bailiffs to seize property in lieu of payment.

Clearly, North East Lincolnshire Council will use every legal resource available to them to secure outstanding Council Tax payments for any amount. However, this same corrupt Council failed to engage and use similar powers to pursue a debt owed to the Council Taxpayer by a former employee who has refused to repay a car loan.

Following a request for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, North East Lincolnshire Council has revealed that in April 2008, a former employee received over £12K of Council Taxpayers money to purchase a car under the Council's Assisted Car Purchase Loan Scheme for employees. However, during the term of the loan this individual defaulted on payments burdening the Council Taxpayer of the borough with an astonishing £10K write off.

The Council were asked what steps they had taken to recover this substantial debt and the costs they have incurred in taking these steps. In response, they incredibly claimed they had simply raised an 'invoice' and made 'follow up enquiries'. The Council also failed to disclose the total costs incurred by the Council Taxpayer in their attempts to recover this debt.

A condition of the Council's Assisted Car Purchase Loan Scheme states that any officer who leaves the employment of the Council, for whatever reason, will be required to repay any balance outstanding with accrued interest on the termination of their employment. The Council also reserved the right to deduct any such outstanding balance from any sums including salary refund, superannuating contributions, lump sum, pension payments or otherwise, from the former employee.

Under the loan agreement, this former employee was obliged to repay the outstanding balance with interest once he or she had left the Council's employment. However, the Council never deducted any sum and are currently in the process of writing off the debt of £10K, plus disbursements incurred in their 'attempts' to recover the outstanding debt, to the detriment of North East Lincolnshire Council Taxpayers.

Additionally, a further condition of the Council's Assisted Car Purchase Loan Scheme states that as a condition of any assistance given under the scheme an Officer shall, if so required, execute a bond for the due performance of his contracted obligations of such reasonable amount as the employing authority may determine or alternatively the car shall be the property of the local authority until the final purchase instalment is paid.

Consequently, according to the terms of the loan agreement the vehicle remains the property of the Council Taxpayer. However, it is quite apparent that this fallacious Council are unwilling to seize the car and sell it to realise all if not some of the £10K and take further action by seizing and selling further personal possessions of the debtor to repay the Council Taxpayers of the borough. The Council's failure to recover this debt is also contrary to their Corporate Debt Recovery Strategy that states they will pursue all monies owed including the use of external debt collection agencies and bailiffs where their in-house processes have failed to elicit payment.

We find these actions of the Council quite malevolent. Evidently, this local authority have a unsympathetic policy on Council Tax arrears towards the citizens of North East Lincolnshire that often result in further costs through court and bailiff costs with supplementary removal of other personal effects to cover these additional costs. Moreover, for those who do not willingly pay their Council Tax arrears may also face the prospect of being imprisoned.

This Council have made it quite clear that the inhabitants of North East Lincolnshire have a responsibility to pay for the services they receive, inclusive of employee salaries and pensions, and the charges for which they are liable. In law, a contract is a binding legal agreement that is enforceable in a court of law. That is to say, a contract is an exchange of promises for the breach of which the law will provide a remedy. However, the Council have made it explicitly clear that both they and their former employees do not have a responsibility to reimburse money owed to the Council Taxpayers for cars they purchase under the Council's Assisted Car Purchase Loan Scheme.

Without a doubt, the debt owed by this former employer is equivalent to over 10 years Council Tax payable by Mr Stinson yet Mr Stinson is threatened with the likelihood of imprisonment, losing personal possessions or having to make payments through an attachment of his earnings to compensate for his Council Tax arrears. However, a former Council employee can simply drive away in a car that does not belong to them without fear of any legal action from North East Lincolnshire Council. This matter is an absolute mockery of the Council's Constitution.

Senior Officers of the Council including Tony Hunter, Chief Executive and more particularly, Rob Walsh, Executive Director of Business Services who receives a salary of £120K per year, are employed to maintain good quality and effective financial control, ensuring compliance with financial protocols, frameworks and codes of practice and to ensure accountability for value for money in all services and to make certain business services demonstrate value for money whilst achieving the objectives of the Council within a complex governance and customer focussed environment.

Conversely, they have both made it quite apparent that the Council can persecute citizens of the borough for money owed to the Council in order to sustain their fat cat salaries and pensions, whilst a former employee, who we no doubt is a former Senior Officer and crony, remains immune from the rigours of legal enforcement and whose debt is beyond proper public scrutiny and deceitfully and conveniently buried in the overall debtors sum within the Council's Statement of Accounts.

The Council also denied requested information in respect of the date when this the debt became apparent and in what official capacity the debtor was employed as, citing the requested information constitutes personal data about the debtor, which relates to them and from which they can be identified and is therefore deemed that this information although held by the Council, is exempt from disclosure under Section 40 (2) 'Personal Information' of the Freedom of Information Act as disclosure would be a breach of their rights under the Data Protection Act 1998. Council Taxpayers who end up in court because of this Council's hounding of Council Tax arrears do not acquire this luxury element of anonymity.

However, in order to publish information relating to the identity of a debtor, the Council would have to assess the impact on the debtor whose data was being published by undertaking a risk assessment in accordance with the Information Commissioner's advice. The Information Commissioner also indicates that if the Council had forewarned those who might become liable for any payment of what might happen in the event of default, subsequent publication would be fair under the first data protection principle as prior notice had been given.

Within their response, the Council have not indicated that any risk assessment had been undertaken irrespective of their claims under the Data Protection Act 1998, which can only be described as a further willful and significant failure by the Executive Director of Business Services. Had the Council done so, then this would have clearly illustrated that the debtor would of been aware of the possibility of County Court action against them that could ultimately reveal their identity, as a matter of public record, through the Register of County Court Judgments.

On the whole, this is undeniably gross maladministration and abuse of position by this inapt pair of Senior Officers, and more specifically Rob Walsh, as the Executive Director of Business Services, who occupies a dominant position within the Council’s legal and business departments in which he is expected to safeguard, or not to act against, the financial interests of the Council but instead decadently caused financial loss to the Council Taxpayer of North East Lincolnshire by allowing another to make a gain of £10K, contrary to the constitutional requirements of the Council.


council complaints CFO expelled what law what law: retribution freedom of expression what is maladministration access to information contact us council corruption nolan report disclaimer links privacy policy
mud, dirt and filth no, its a service request £10K write off council maladministration misconduct news sitemap