Random Freemanesque Babblings from idiots unable to sustain their own thread

[The Seventh String]

If the structure is several closely guarded fiefdoms with no overall control and oversight, with no-one to knock heads together when needed, the organisation is not fit for its purpose.

It’s called the “internal market”, a legally required structure where every department hires the other departments to do stuff for them and all have seperate and fiercely guarded budgets.

An example from my own experience. Once upon a time a certain Trading Standards Dept. would proactively buy a dodgy and unsafe looking car from a dealer of doubtful probity then check it over for safety and overall condition.

If the vehicle was found to be unsafe or severely not as described the dealer would be prosecuted and the costs of the entire operation recovered by Trading Standards. The operation acting as a deterrent to local used car dealers as they never knew when the anonymous shopper from Trading Standards would turn up.

Under the internal market, legal services got split off and had their own ring-fenced budget. Now what would happen is that Trading Standards did their bit, then the council’s lawyers would do their thing in court as before. But the recovered costs would now go entirely to the legal dept. because that’s where recovered legal costs had to go.

So Trading Standards were out of pocket every time they enforced the law. So they stopped doing proactive enforcement.

And so on across the entire authority.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

Sorry but I have to call bullshit on that one. As far as I know, and I'm pretty sure I'm right, local councils have no power to fine council tax payers for late payment let alone ludicrous figures like £100 per instance.

I'll concede that and I might have the exact figure wrong - but it swiftly mounted up. They were not "fines". They were disguised as late payment "admin fees". They were still payable and added to the arrears and perhaps not applicable to all councils. I'll look back through my documents (this was 8 years ago and I really should have deleted them under Data Protection ) but it was a disgraceful state of affairs.

[longdog]

Again I have to say I'm pretty sure councils do not have the power to impose late payment fees big or small. They can pass on the costs of a liability order and then collection fees if it gets to bailiff time but those are specifically laid down in law. Late payment fees aren't permitted in law and therefore would be completely unlawful and impossible to enforce.

[HardyW]

Another example. A person who was unemployed got a job. Council allowed payment on the 1st, 14th, or 23rd of the month. He got paid on the 25th. He wrote to the council asking to be allowed to pay on the 25th. They refused… and added a £100 fine each month he was in arrears. He paid his council tax amount each month, but the fines had him £1,000 in debt after a year. They sent the bailiff around. He was homeless.

Sorry but I have to call bullshit on that one. As far as I know, and I'm pretty sure I'm right, local councils have no power to fine council tax payers for late payment let alone ludicrous figures like £100 per instance. To the best of my knowledge they have to send out two warning letters for late payments (and I've never had one for anything under a month late) after which the whole outstanding balance becomes due and they can apply for a liability order and pass the cost on to the CT payer.

If I'm wrong and there is a power to fine late payers please cite the relevant clause in the law.

I also don't think there's a power to fine for late payment. But there are powers to agree, vary or withdraw a scheme to recover arrears. So maybe the person was being charged the current month's tax plus £100 a month towards previous years' arrears? A council also has the ability to withdraw the monthly payment arrangements and require payment of the whole year's council tax - but it's not obvious to me what circumstances would make that a sensible move.

[longdog]

I also don't think there's a power to fine for late payment. But there are powers to agree, vary or withdraw a scheme to recover arrears. So maybe the person was being charged the current month's tax plus £100 a month towards previous years' arrears?

That would be a completely different situation to the one described and being a few days late with a monthly payment would have no effect on that. A monthly payment of £X for this year's CT and £Y for arrears wouldn't suddenly metamorphose into something else entirely just because a payment was late.

A council also has the ability to withdraw the monthly payment arrangements and require payment of the whole year's council tax - but it's not obvious to me what circumstances would make that a sensible move.

If it's before a liability order then it would take two reminders and a further late payment to trigger the withdrawal of the legal right to pay in instalments. If it's a post liability order agreement that's possibly another matter but fines still don't come into it.

[Tevildo]

A council also has the ability to withdraw the monthly payment arrangements and require payment of the whole year's council tax - but it's not obvious to me what circumstances would make that a sensible move.

If I may speak from personal experience here, that's what happened to me. A few years ago I was seriously in arrears with my council tax (mainly due to a problem with the paperwork, although I must confess to some ostrich-emulating behaviour over the issue). The council took enforcement action over the entire year's tax (including that for future months) - fortunately, I was in a position to pay it, but there was no extra penalty or late fee that was applied. Of course, different councils may arrange things in other ways.

[ArthurWankspittle]

The council took enforcement action over the entire year's tax (including that for future months)

It is a concession to allow people to pay in instalments, I think technically the bill is due at the start of the financial year but for obvious practical reasons the various instalments are allowed. But don't pay and they withdraw the concession.

[Hercule Parrot]

I cannot see why a good manager would not have some oversight of these processes and correct situstions which were to the detriment of the Local Authority as a whole. This is what managers are for, overseeing everything and ensuring it all runs smoothly in a co-ordinated fashion.
If the structure is several closely guarded fiefdoms with no overall control and oversight, with no-one to knock heads together when needed, the organisation is not fit for its purpose.

I don't disagree, but the other point in stories like this is the responsibility of the individual worker. The public sector doesn't have a monopoly on stupid jobsworth staff, they are everywhere nowadays. Try speaking to an airline or changing your internet provider, the same idiotic "computer says no" manner is endemic. People have surrendered their personal morality to the corporation, perhaps pressured by changes to employment security etc.

[D-C]

I cannot see why a good manager would not have some oversight of these processes and correct situstions which were to the detriment of the Local Authority as a whole. This is what managers are for, overseeing everything and ensuring it all runs smoothly in a co-ordinated fashion.
If the structure is several closely guarded fiefdoms with no overall control and oversight, with no-one to knock heads together when needed, the organisation is not fit for its purpose.

I don't disagree, but the other point in stories like this is the responsibility of the individual worker. The public sector doesn't have a monopoly on stupid jobsworth staff, they are everywhere nowadays. Try speaking to an airline or changing your internet provider, the same idiotic "computer says no" manner is endemic. People have surrendered their personal morality to the corporation, perhaps pressured by changes to employment security etc.

There was a case of a student who bought a ticket for a Ryan air flight, he got the name wrong on the ticket. Ryan air wanted £220 to change the name on the ticket, but it cost £103 to change his name and get a new passport.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

Again I have to say I'm pretty sure councils do not have the power to impose late payment fees big or small. They can pass on the costs of a liability order and then collection fees if it gets to bailiff time but those are specifically laid down in law. Late payment fees aren't permitted in law and therefore would be completely unlawful and impossible to enforce.

Yep, you are correct. I'd misremembered the details (it was actually March 2009). I said before, what I like about Quatloos is the requirement to show workings keeps us honest!

His council tax payments were due 1st of month. Direct debit dates were 1st, 15th and 25th. He did not have a bank account and because of his mid-month payday was making cash payments on 11th-14th of each month. He asked us if he could pay on the 25th as the council allowed direct debit payers to do, but we refused and would only take cash payments on the 1st.

This meant he was permanently in arrears, even though he was paying the full monthly amount. This triggered a summons after 2 months of late payments and added £40 to the bill making it even less likely that he could clear it. Whilst that was being dealt with we rolled into the next financial year. The system determined that as he was in arrears he couldn't pay by installments and was liable for the whole year's payment in one lump sum (which is where I remembered the approx £1,000 figure from).

He then "vanished". I know not where he went.

However, whilst useful for filling in my memory, what this has reminded me to do is securely delete my old council emails which have been sitting in an offline .pst file for no good reason other than laziness! Don't want to get myself in trouble with the ICO!!!

[longdog]

However, whilst useful for filling in my memory, what this has reminded me to do is securely delete my old council emails which have been sitting in an offline .pst file for no good reason other than laziness! Don't want to get myself in trouble with the ICO!!!

Oooooh...... That's very naughty

[AnOwlCalledSage]

Oooooh...... That's very naughty

Yep - especially as I was a data controller and to some degree responsible for enforcing data protection policies in others!

All clear now... but it does mean I will have to rely on memory for my council based horror stories. This will not end well

[longdog]

Lest we forget what a fine upstanding bunch the footlers are...

A man who stole money raised for his dying son caused a scene in a Cheltenham court yesterday.

The dad-of-three, who calls himself 'Julian of the family Emms', was ejected from Cheltenham Magistrates' Court at around 2.45pm yesterday after refusing to stand for the magistrates.

Mr Emms, 52, was jailed for three years in 2012 after embezzling £16,500 from a charity fund to help his son Michael fight motor neurone disease.

https://www.gloucestershirelive.co.uk/n ... am-1857862

[Pox]

Lest we forget what a fine upstanding bunch the footlers are...

A man who stole money raised for his dying son caused a scene in a Cheltenham court yesterday.

The dad-of-three, who calls himself 'Julian of the family Emms', was ejected from Cheltenham Magistrates' Court at around 2.45pm yesterday after refusing to stand for the magistrates.

Mr Emms, 52, was jailed for three years in 2012 after embezzling £16,500 from a charity fund to help his son Michael fight motor neurone disease.

https://www.gloucestershirelive.co.uk/n ... am-1857862

How despicable.
MND is a living death and something you wouldn't wish on your worst enemy.
I agree, lest we forget what a fine upstanding bunch they are.

[TheNewSaint]

Mr Emms, 52, was jailed for three years in 2012 after embezzling £16,500 from a charity fund to help his son Michael fight motor neurone disease.

Couldn't a disease sufferer get money from a charity fund legitimately?

[ArthurWankspittle]

Mr Emms, 52, was jailed for three years in 2012 after embezzling £16,500 from a charity fund to help his son Michael fight motor neurone disease.

Couldn't a disease sufferer get money from a charity fund legitimately?

Yes but wasn't this a charity set up specifically for Michael?

[grixit]

Mr Emms, 52, was jailed for three years in 2012 after embezzling £16,500 from a charity fund to help his son Michael fight motor neurone disease.

Couldn't a disease sufferer get money from a charity fund legitimately?

You're parsing it as

embezzling £16,500 (from a charity fund) to help his son Michael fight motor neurone disease.

But in context it's actually

embezzling £16,500 from (a charity fund to help his son Michael fight motor neurone disease).

That is, he embezzled for himself the money that had been given for his son.

[TheNewSaint]

You're parsing it as

embezzling £16,500 (from a charity fund) to help his son Michael fight motor neurone disease.

But in context it's actually

embezzling £16,500 from (a charity fund to help his son Michael fight motor neurone disease).

That is, he embezzled for himself the money that had been given for his son.

Ah, that makes sense. Thanks. It seemed somewhat noble the way I was reading it. Wow, what a POS.

And I don't know if the UK has stricter rules on charities, but in the US it's pretty easy to legally embezzle from them, simply by paying yourself an obscene salary.

[longdog]

And I don't know if the UK has stricter rules on charities, but in the US it's pretty easy to legally embezzle from them, simply by paying yourself an obscene salary.

We have The Charities Commission which oversees registered charities but the same thing happens in the UK to a shocking extent. It's not unheard of for charities with multi-million pound budgets to spend virtually nothing on the cause while paying the CEO an astronomical salary.

[TheNewSaint]

We have The Charities Commission which oversees registered charities but the same thing happens in the UK to a shocking extent. It's not unheard of for charities with multi-million pound budgets to spend virtually nothing on the cause while paying the CEO an astronomical salary.

So my original comment is still kind of valid. If you want to take £16,500 out if a charity for yourself, there are ways to do it.