Vindictive Council Officers Unlawfully Seized Car Twice

Law Officers Smear Victim's Spouse

On the evening of 27th July 2009, an employee of North East Lincolnshire Council seized and impounded a car belonging to Mr Webb’s wife. The Council employee left a notice and attached to the windshield of her vehicle, which stated it had been clamped for non-payment of Council Tax to the sum of £388.89. The notice also stated that failure to pay within the next few hours would result in Mrs Webb’s car being removed and sold at public auction without reference or delay. Since the commencement of the Council Tax Regulations in 1993, Mrs Webb and her husband have always paid promptly and never been in any arrears for any demand of Council Tax by North East Lincolnshire Council. Upon discovering her vehicle had been illegally clamped, Mrs Webb, who suffers from a life threatening illness, became distressed at having been deprived of her property and as of consequence stranded.

Mr Webb was informed of the content of Council employee’s notice, which also included their telephone number and he called them. Mr Webb complained to them that his wife did not have any Council Tax debt and because of this they had wrongly installed a wheel clamp on her car. The Council employee confirmed that Mrs Webb was not the debtor but if Mr Webb did not furnish them with details of ownership of the car then they would remove it the following day to be immediately sold at auction.

The National Standards for Enforcement Agents (NSEA) is a code that concerns the levying of distress by creditors, such as North East Lincolnshire Council, and their employees. As of consequence of the NSEA, both the Council employee and the Council have a duty to care that must be exercised when seizing goods whilst acting with discernment. It is clear that Mr Webb’s complaint to the Council employee had put them on notice that the car they had seized did not belong to a Council Tax debtor and as of result of that complaint, Mr Webb would have expected both the Council and their employee to act with due caution. A Service Level Agreement (SLA) between the Council employee and the Council states that seized goods will be retained for a minimum of 5 working days and will then be sold at auction. However, the notice affixed to Mrs Webb’s car windshield by the Council employee, and during Mr Webb’s telephone conversation with them, confirmed that the employee and the Council failed to adhere to this requirement of the SLA.

It became apparent to Mr Webb that the Council department who was ultimately accountable for illegally seizing Mrs Webb’s car was the Business Services Directorate, which manages the Council’s Finance, Law & Democratic Services, Strategic Business Support and Internal Audit. Robert Walsh is a North East Lincolnshire Council Executive Director and who has the overall responsibility of the Council’s Business Services Directorate. Early on the morning of 28th July 2009, Mrs Webb sent a complaint to the Council, which was received by them at 8.57am that morning. According to the SLA, Mrs Webb's complaint should have been handled courteously and investigated promptly. The SLA also states that until a complaint has been considered and responded to, a hold will be placed on all further action. Mr Webb also sent a further complaint to Robert Walsh that same morning. As of a consequence of both Mr and Mr Webb’s complaints, Robert Walsh was informed and therefore fully aware of the situation in respect of the Council’s seizure and impounding of Mrs Webb’s car.

In view of the requirements of the NSEA and the Council’s SLA, it is most unreasonable, irregular and unjustified in the circumstances for both Robert Walsh and his employee to demand a third party to contest the seizure and removal of their goods, which were to be sold without reference or delay at auction following removal, in less than 24 hours of been seized with no other previous notice of intention and not 5 days.

Due to the Council’s threat of removal of the vehicle and their failure to acknowledge or respond to Mrs Webb's complaint, Mr Webb was left with no alternative but to call the Council employee again. The Council employee stated that they were fully aware of the situation and advised that if the vehicle registration document for Mrs Webb’s car was not produced and a payment was not forthcoming then they would remove the vehicle that afternoon. Under extreme duress, Mr Webb proceeded to make a payment of £100 to the Council employee and informed them that he would also fax a copy of the vehicle registration document to them prevent the Council employee from illegally taking Mrs Webb’s car away that afternoon.

As of result of their action to seize and impound goods belonging to a third party, the Council wrongfully interfered with property belonging to Mrs Webb by trespassing to, unlawfully detaining and depriving her of the use and possession of them that ultimately culminated into illegal distress. Consequently, the actions of both the Council employee and Robert Walsh in their failure to investigate any of the complaints in accordance with the relevant Council policies and agreements were simply designed to and caused harassment, alarm and distress to both Mr and Mrs Webb. This action by the Executive Director Business Services ultimately proves the continuance of his vendetta against Mr Webb and his family.

Disturbingly, the Council employee also recorded within a formal case history document that Mr Webb had also cut off the wheel clamp attached to his wife's car and the police were informed of this. These claims by the Council’s employee are outrageous and damaging lies since Mr Webb never once attended the vehicle whilst it illegally clamped. Mr Webb consequently submitted a complaint to the Council employee in respect of this further and malicious fabrication. In response, the Council employee confirmed that their statement in this respect was a complete lie. Evidently, this additional falsehood is libellous and caused harassment, alarm and distress to Mr Webb, which was undoubtedly designed to seriously damage Mr Webb’s character and reputation by falsely stating that he had committed a criminal offence.

Furthermore, a North East Lincolnshire Council Court/Enforcement Manager, Neil Smith, also stated that during the time of the illegal distress, Mr Webb had called the Council by telephone where it was quite clear to him that Mr Webb took part in a conversation with a member of the Council's Debt Recovery Department. Neil Smith also stated that this particular member reiterated the advice of the Council employee to Mr Webb and that the information given by both the employee and the Council was correct. This statement by one of Robert Walsh’s sycophants is also an outrageous fabrication, which was designed to portray the Council as been reasonable in such matters and denigrate Mr Webb as of a consequence. In view of this lie by Neil Smith, Mr Webb submitted a complaint to the Council. In response, the Council confirmed that Neil Smith’s statement was also a lie. Consequently, this further lie was also designed to and caused further and substantial harassment, alarm and distress to Mr Webb and as of a result, both Neil Smith and Robert Walsh discriminatorily victimised Mr Webb.

More alarmingly, Elizabeth Conolly, who is the Council’s Head of Legal Services, forwarded a copy of Mr Webb’s subject access request in respect of Neil Smith’s lie to the Information Commissioner that had no relevance whatsoever to an appeal lodge by Mr Webb in respect of a freedom of information request denied by North East Lincolnshire Council. Without Mr Webb’s knowledge and consent, Elizabeth Conolly processed this personal data at a time without responding to the context of the subject access request as required by the Data Protection Act and, incredibly, stated to the Information Commissioner that this particular request was evidence indicating ‘targeting’ of Robert Walsh. In doing so, Elizabeth Conolly confirmed the collusion between Robert Walsh and Neil Smith in their willful and perverse actions in perpetrating lies against an innocent citizen that, as of a consequence, undeniably demonstrated the calculated targeting of Mr Webb instead. This is further proof of the lengths that sycophants, such as Elizabeth Conolly, will go to protect liars employed by North East Lincolnshire Council.

However, the reprehensible actions of the Executive Director Business Services and his departments did not stop there. In February 2010, the Council once again seized and impounded Mrs Webb’s car whilst parked in Grimsby. Again, Mrs Webb was made to suffer the indignation and torment of been dispossessed of her possessions. Mrs Webb then had to call her daughter who found her mother in a tearful and distraught state and take her mother home that was several miles away from where the car was clamped. The Council employee stated that he had paperwork authorising their action and had verified it by calling the Council by telephone that same day. It was not until Mr Webb arrived and stated to the Council employee that for a second time his wife’s car had been illegally seized by North East Lincolnshire Council and that he would now be calling his solicitor to immediately seek legal advice, that the employee called the Council again. Several hours later the Council employee emerged from his van, removed the wheel clamp and then left without offering any apology whatsoever.

Once Robert Walsh was made aware of the first instance of the illegal clamping of Mrs Webb’s car in July 2009, as the Executive Director Business Services, he could have stopped it and ensured that a similar matter would never occur again. Yet, this recent incident indisputably displays the continuance of malice brought about by the Executive Director Business Services against, and the targeting of, Mr Webb and his family when unmistakably for a second time, subordinates under the instruction and supervision of Robert Walsh had no lawful excuse to take control of and groundlessly threaten confiscation of property belonging to Mrs Webb.