Bootnecks - free stinkers
Friday, 27 April 2012
Thursday, 26 April 2012
Marton going against Conservatives? Blackpool local elections
Rumours are abound that the Conservative candidate to replace the awful and lauded Saint Jim, Peter Collins MBE, has not touched the right note with the luminaries of the defunct Conservative Association of Marton (membership of none?). One has to wonder if he does get elected will he be able to unravel the £60k funds in a bank account belonging to the FEsLC. Not that he is a member of that sinecure, but too many former regulars are not allowed into the secret society and councillors don't give a hoot about people who have genuinely served their country.
It may be of note, but no-one has been able to find the Mayor's Fund with the missing £5K, which was established during WWII for "volunteers from Blackpool, who served in the War and returned to Blackpool but find themselves in financial difficulty..." £5.000 may not seem like a lot of money today, but with interest and careful nurturing could have accumulated considerably over the 20 years it has mysterious disappeared into the Fylde Ex-Service's coffers.
Just for interest to local political sages and observers, there are still local elderly persons who qualify for assistance from that fund and to deny them access it tantamount to theft.
Not that the FEsLC is wholly trustworthy. The major consideration for any person going and seeking assistance from any and every charitable institute is that their private position is kept so. That is to say that a caseworker will only give details to a select few who are in a position to advise and distribute funds. The minutes of meetings of the FEsLC names distressed person or persons which is against every protocol of charitable work. It was the dichotomy that separated Ssafa caseworkers and the RBL local management teams of the past, I.E., the RBL ran on a committee basis and cases were handled through a group, whereas Ssafa trusted the caseworkers integrity and hard work so that each caseworker went directly to the paying charities on the clients behalf. Which raises the question of legality and ownership of the funds that the Heroic Major had or gained through his directorship of the Charity Shop on Bank hey Street, now under the umbrella of the FEsLC?
Oh! what webs they weaved....
It may be of note, but no-one has been able to find the Mayor's Fund with the missing £5K, which was established during WWII for "volunteers from Blackpool, who served in the War and returned to Blackpool but find themselves in financial difficulty..." £5.000 may not seem like a lot of money today, but with interest and careful nurturing could have accumulated considerably over the 20 years it has mysterious disappeared into the Fylde Ex-Service's coffers.
Just for interest to local political sages and observers, there are still local elderly persons who qualify for assistance from that fund and to deny them access it tantamount to theft.
Not that the FEsLC is wholly trustworthy. The major consideration for any person going and seeking assistance from any and every charitable institute is that their private position is kept so. That is to say that a caseworker will only give details to a select few who are in a position to advise and distribute funds. The minutes of meetings of the FEsLC names distressed person or persons which is against every protocol of charitable work. It was the dichotomy that separated Ssafa caseworkers and the RBL local management teams of the past, I.E., the RBL ran on a committee basis and cases were handled through a group, whereas Ssafa trusted the caseworkers integrity and hard work so that each caseworker went directly to the paying charities on the clients behalf. Which raises the question of legality and ownership of the funds that the Heroic Major had or gained through his directorship of the Charity Shop on Bank hey Street, now under the umbrella of the FEsLC?
Oh! what webs they weaved....
Worst poem ever, but I love it -St George Forever
England
my England. (St George Forever)
Goodbye
to my England. So long my old friend
Your days
are numbered, being brought to an end.
To be
Scottish, Irish or Welsh that’s fine,
But don’t
say you’re English, that’s way out of line.
The
French and the Germans may call themselves such,
So may
Norwegians, the Swedes and the Dutch.
You can
say you are Russian or maybe a Dane,
But don’t
say you’re English ever again.
At
Broadcasting House the word is taboo,
In
Brussels it’s scrapped, in parliament too.
Even
schools are affected. Staff do as they’re told,
They must
not teach children about England of old.
Writers
like Shakespeare, Milton and Shaw,
The
pupils don’t learn about them anymore.
How about
Agincourt, Hastings, Arnhem or Mons?
When
England lost hosts of her very brave sons.
We are
not Europeans, how can we be?
Europe is
miles away, over the sea
We're the
English from England, let's all be proud
Stand up
and be counted - Shout it out loud!
Let's
tell our Government and Brussels too
We're
proud of our heritage and the Red, White and Blue
Fly the
flag of Saint George or the Union Jack
Let the
world know - WE WANT OUR
ENGLAND BACK !!!!
Thank you letter from a GP
Dear Notyetavet,
My name is Dr Louise Irvine. I’ve been a GP for 27 years, and a 38 Degrees member for the last two. Last night, I spoke at our patient-sponsored event with some of the senior GPs who have been put in charge of deciding the future of local health services.
Together, more than 22,000 38 Degrees members sponsored the event. Thank you so much for being part of it. It was really quite something. And not just because plenty of senior GPs turned up, despite already having spent all day being schmoozed by private healthcare companies.
The event last night helped convince me that although we didn't manage to stop Lansley getting his NHS changes through parliament, there is still lots we can do to protect our NHS. Those “RIP NHS” headlines were premature. I think the NHS is now like someone with a chronic illness: if we don’t look after it, bits might start falling off. But right now, the NHS is a living body, and one we’re all part of.
I heard senior GPs say how glad they were that 38 Degrees members want to continue to campaign to protect the NHS. They responded positively to 38 Degrees members’ campaign ideas, and many said they were willing to work with us. I heard speaker after speaker say it's never been more important for citizens to get involved and make themselves heard.
We know we can make a difference. Now we need to decide together what our priorities are. The 38 Degrees office team have just launched a poll to give all us members a say. I've just voted on my favourite ideas - can you take a couple of minutes to do the same?
https://secure.38degrees.org.uk/nhs-poll-april
I'm lucky. As a GP I see every day how important the NHS is and the difference it can make to people’s lives. So I’ve never doubted that the best future for our health service is a people-powered one.
Being involved with the 38 Degrees campaign to Save the NHS showed me how many of us know that our health service is precious and worth protecting. Like most of us, when the government pushed ahead with its plans and ignored our concerns, I felt sad and worried.
But the response from 38 Degrees members since the law was passed has been incredible. Ideas have poured in for ways to continue to support the NHS. The office team has worked through those ideas, and asked NHS experts for their advice on what could work. Now we have a chance to decide which ones to prioritise in the weeks and months ahead.
Like you, I’ve donated, signed petitions, and emailed my MP. I saw the effect of our huge billboard campaign and the thousands of letters and emails we sent to MPs and Lords. I know we’re at our most powerful when we get together to set priorities, plan, and make things happen.
So please get involved in setting 38 Degrees' priorities for the next stage of the campaign - vote now:
https://secure.38degrees.org.uk/nhs-poll-april
Thanks for being involved,
Dr Louise Irvine
My name is Dr Louise Irvine. I’ve been a GP for 27 years, and a 38 Degrees member for the last two. Last night, I spoke at our patient-sponsored event with some of the senior GPs who have been put in charge of deciding the future of local health services.
Together, more than 22,000 38 Degrees members sponsored the event. Thank you so much for being part of it. It was really quite something. And not just because plenty of senior GPs turned up, despite already having spent all day being schmoozed by private healthcare companies.
The event last night helped convince me that although we didn't manage to stop Lansley getting his NHS changes through parliament, there is still lots we can do to protect our NHS. Those “RIP NHS” headlines were premature. I think the NHS is now like someone with a chronic illness: if we don’t look after it, bits might start falling off. But right now, the NHS is a living body, and one we’re all part of.
I heard senior GPs say how glad they were that 38 Degrees members want to continue to campaign to protect the NHS. They responded positively to 38 Degrees members’ campaign ideas, and many said they were willing to work with us. I heard speaker after speaker say it's never been more important for citizens to get involved and make themselves heard.
We know we can make a difference. Now we need to decide together what our priorities are. The 38 Degrees office team have just launched a poll to give all us members a say. I've just voted on my favourite ideas - can you take a couple of minutes to do the same?
https://secure.38degrees.org.uk/nhs-poll-april
I'm lucky. As a GP I see every day how important the NHS is and the difference it can make to people’s lives. So I’ve never doubted that the best future for our health service is a people-powered one.
Being involved with the 38 Degrees campaign to Save the NHS showed me how many of us know that our health service is precious and worth protecting. Like most of us, when the government pushed ahead with its plans and ignored our concerns, I felt sad and worried.
But the response from 38 Degrees members since the law was passed has been incredible. Ideas have poured in for ways to continue to support the NHS. The office team has worked through those ideas, and asked NHS experts for their advice on what could work. Now we have a chance to decide which ones to prioritise in the weeks and months ahead.
Like you, I’ve donated, signed petitions, and emailed my MP. I saw the effect of our huge billboard campaign and the thousands of letters and emails we sent to MPs and Lords. I know we’re at our most powerful when we get together to set priorities, plan, and make things happen.
So please get involved in setting 38 Degrees' priorities for the next stage of the campaign - vote now:
https://secure.38degrees.org.uk/nhs-poll-april
Thanks for being involved,
Dr Louise Irvine
West Coast politician, Blackpool beware who you vote for
As Blackpool prepares for bi-elections, it is perhaps judicious just to have a look at another political figure in another Coastal Resort. He's not as Bad as the Clanger Twins, the Crystal Palace scaffolder, Simon No-Mates Donkey Walloper, I might be Gay but at heart I'm a miserable bastard Lieber, and a toilet full of recent interlopers.
Wednesday, 25 April 2012
Fat cats at the Council
Blackpool Council richlist
Job Title Total Remuneration Total Remuneration
2009-10 2010-11
Chief Executive £168,039 £169,35 up 00.78%
Director of Resources £110,116
Director of Children's Adults and Families £148,654
Director of Places £129,096
Chief Executive - RE-Blackpool £175,995 £195,304 up10.97%
Executive Director of Business Services £338,447
Executive Director of Children and Young People £135,862
Executive Director of Adult Social Care £311,864
Executive Director of Culture and Communities £120,636
Executive Director of Tourism and Regeneration £130,021
Unknown title £102,500
Unknown title £107,500
Unknown title £107,500
Unknown title £127,500
Unknown title £132,500
Unknown title £152,500
How can anyone working for a local council be worth 50% more than a Prime Minister? Unless it was Gordon, but that goes without saying.
One is a luxury; 2 is opulence.
Government advisor resigns
I was not convinced by the excellent day for ‘Free Speech’
by Rupert Murdoch’s son. From the
instant that Desperate Dave acceded to public indignation and instigated the
Leveson Show, it was obvious even to we blind morons that the Sun King would
have his kilogramme of flesh.
For most observers even a billionaire’s distance from
Westminster, it has been such that access to Government has been via a new
elite to a fresh oligarch of a selected few chosen to lead. Not by me.
I would have had David Davis any time over Desperate Dave and his Nepotist Band and under no circumstances could I be a party to those who
become rich, not through effort and ability, but Socio-Communistic dogma. The centuries of impartial and educated public
service has been replaced by a poorly educated and immoral gaggle of PC yes
persons with no other interest than that of their own. From the Liberal candidate for the office of
Mayor of London down to the illegal immigrant working as doorperson at the Ministry
of Justice, there is no control and definitely no accountability. So today’s announcement by Adam Smith comes
as something of a relief that at last the sword has been wielded harakiri by someone who now openly accepts
responsibility for the mistakes he has made.
If Adam is a woman or an unmasked fargot, he could soon go to the Courts
and plead unfair and constructive dismissal and that none of the problems were of
his making. The Courts will back him and
give more tax payers money because of theirs, the Courts, bad judgment, as with the
woman who oversaw the murder of Baby Peter.
It was
all to easy for the Leveson Show to attribute everything in 160 plus pages of
emails to the Minister, if that is what was the intent of Murdoch Jnr. Having
sat through the Hutton inquiry and reviewed the conclusion, there was nothing definitive
or conclusive in Juniors expose. Not
that I am trying to defend a Minister who may soon be shown not to be culpable
through association with the Sun King, but is definitely culpable because he
belongs to the squeaky clean brigade with rainbow glasses with not the brains to check his backside. The removal of one Minister with hard line views for one of the "In-Crowd" is for the Prime Minister to answer and Parliament, not Leveson, to challenge. For this reason is it too soon to throw stones as not all the evidence is laid before this inquiry. One thing, Desperate Dave will not be flying half way round the world to consult with the Sun King unless it is to apply for a job, and he can do that today for all the good he is doing.
Unfortunately a generation and a half of corrupt Lieber has made this impossible. Just for interest, milk(can't get a pint delivered) and butter (has gone from 62p to 139p in twelve months) has risen
by more than the official rate of inflation, whatever that is supposed to be, 4.7% (LOL). Not to the poor it isn't.
Friday, 20 April 2012
Ken the Lieber man, thru' and thru'.
Ken Livingstone today insisted he was simply clueless about his financial
affairs — as he promised to publish his income every year to show he is not a
tax-dodger.
In a bid to draw a line under the tax affair that has dogged his campaign to be Mayor of London, Labour’s candidate said he only hired an accountant because he “would have just screwed it up” himself.
Mr Livingstone has been accused of setting up a private company, Silveta Ltd, which allowed him to avoid paying at least £75,000 in tax. Today he claimed he was forced to employ the accountant following his defeat to Tory rival Boris Johnson in 2008 because he was touring the world advising mayors in South America, China and Africa — and could not manage all the different payments.
In addition, he said he does not know how much his wife Emma Beal earns from their joint company. In a wide-ranging interview he also:
This is the Labour mentality, the lies and the deceit on their own competence to do anything except create debt. As disappeared former Prime Minister and Chancellor Gordon Brown raided pensioners savings, hapless Lieber and their followers plunged the country into debt having inheriting a small windfall. Perhaps the Cuntservatives would have done no better with their absurd cronyism and misplaced nepotism as Luckless Dave is finding with his clueless Cabinet colleagues, we shall never know.
What we do know s that politics need a dose of realism. Fetch back all the troops today and put them to work on cleaning up Britain by kicking out the Abu Qatada's and every immigrant that spits on a former or serving soldier - that is said for the lunatics at JD "Spooners" in Liverpool who insulted the funeral party of a dead Royal Marine.
The country cannot afford the tag of the racist or fascist label that pseudo-intellectual bullies place at every individual's feet who do not swallow hook, line and sinker the lie on multi-culturalism and how it is improving Britain.
What improved Britain was the sweat and toil of a hundred generations of Britons, mainly Celtic stock, who worked for the community as a whole. Families lived in squallor and poverty and strived to get education and better homes. Look at the schools and taxes are being spent on immigrant families with no ties to this nation except via that door that is open and the benefit system which the world knows is here for them. Not true and it should be said again and again.
Whilst some prattle on about this weekends F1 motor show in Bahrain, they should spend a little of their time and energy in sorting out this country. Are we to get more of Ken Livingstone on the effrontery of the immigrant vote, thus diluting mine? It makes one wonder why we ever served Our Country.
In a bid to draw a line under the tax affair that has dogged his campaign to be Mayor of London, Labour’s candidate said he only hired an accountant because he “would have just screwed it up” himself.
Mr Livingstone has been accused of setting up a private company, Silveta Ltd, which allowed him to avoid paying at least £75,000 in tax. Today he claimed he was forced to employ the accountant following his defeat to Tory rival Boris Johnson in 2008 because he was touring the world advising mayors in South America, China and Africa — and could not manage all the different payments.
In addition, he said he does not know how much his wife Emma Beal earns from their joint company. In a wide-ranging interview he also:
This is the Labour mentality, the lies and the deceit on their own competence to do anything except create debt. As disappeared former Prime Minister and Chancellor Gordon Brown raided pensioners savings, hapless Lieber and their followers plunged the country into debt having inheriting a small windfall. Perhaps the Cuntservatives would have done no better with their absurd cronyism and misplaced nepotism as Luckless Dave is finding with his clueless Cabinet colleagues, we shall never know.
What we do know s that politics need a dose of realism. Fetch back all the troops today and put them to work on cleaning up Britain by kicking out the Abu Qatada's and every immigrant that spits on a former or serving soldier - that is said for the lunatics at JD "Spooners" in Liverpool who insulted the funeral party of a dead Royal Marine.
The country cannot afford the tag of the racist or fascist label that pseudo-intellectual bullies place at every individual's feet who do not swallow hook, line and sinker the lie on multi-culturalism and how it is improving Britain.
What improved Britain was the sweat and toil of a hundred generations of Britons, mainly Celtic stock, who worked for the community as a whole. Families lived in squallor and poverty and strived to get education and better homes. Look at the schools and taxes are being spent on immigrant families with no ties to this nation except via that door that is open and the benefit system which the world knows is here for them. Not true and it should be said again and again.
Whilst some prattle on about this weekends F1 motor show in Bahrain, they should spend a little of their time and energy in sorting out this country. Are we to get more of Ken Livingstone on the effrontery of the immigrant vote, thus diluting mine? It makes one wonder why we ever served Our Country.
Wednesday, 18 April 2012
Consultation Paper on Bailiff Reform. Pt 3
In this particular
Newsletter, I will be addressing Chapter 5 and Chapter 9 of the Consultation
paper on bailiff reform.
Chapter 5: Costs of Enforcement Related Services: Questions 33-45
Any increase in the statutory fee will not be welcome by debtors or indeed the advice sector. At present, there is a completely different statutory fee scale for the collection of unpaid council tax, parking charge notices, criminal fines imposed by the magistrate’s court and child support agency arrears. This is complete and utter nonsense and MOJ are hoping to overcome this by introducing a set fee scale.
If this Consultation had been issued 2 or 3 years ago, I would very likely have been highly critical of the proposed fee scale. However, in the past year since this awful recession has impacted on the vast majority of individuals, it is sadly the case that many bailiff companies are routinely “interpreting” the fee scale in a way that never used to happen. As an example, it is fast becoming “commonplace” for a bailiff to charge an “enforcement fee” of approx £150-£250 (or even more) when making an initial visit to a property to enforce a Liability Order for unpaid council tax. There is of course no provision within the current statutory fee scale for an “enforcement fee” and, in reality, this is really an “attending to remove fee” which should not be charged unless a prior valid levy had been made on the debtor’s goods.
The enforcement of an unpaid parking charge notice is much worse with some of the “less reputable” companies attempting to charge “attending to remove” fees at each visit!! This abuse of the fee scale was rarely ever seen before the recession and now, we have many cases where a bailiff is attempting to charge fees in excess of £500 to enforce an unpaid parking ticket of just £120. If the debtor cannot afford to pay...their vehicle is removed and sold. Without a car, many debtors are finding it difficult to continue with their employment and with bank lending at an all time low, they are unable to borrow money to buy a replacement vehicle and this is leading to further serious debt related problems.
Approx 4 years ago HMCS awarded Contracts to 4 companies (Marston Group, Philips Collection Services, Swift Credit Services and Excel Enforcement) for the enforcement of unpaid Magistrate Court Fines. At the time, I was very critical of the fees that HMCS agreed that each company could charge the debtor which consisted of an “administration fee” of £75 followed by a “one off” figure of £200 if an “enforcement” visit was made. Recently, the fees have increased to £85 and £215. I was most critical of the “admin” fee which I had wrongly thought of a being a charge for sending a letter. In fact; this fee is to set up an account and administer and monitor a payment plan etc. However, the problem that we find with the enforcement of these unpaid court fines is the difficulty in getting a payment arrangement agreed once the case has been allocated to a bailiff for enforcement and the reason for this is because; the HMCS contracts specifically provide that from all payments made to the bailiff, the court fine must be discharged first. Therefore, if a bailiff is to agree a payment proposal over 3 months etc, he will know that he will not receive his commission until after the fine has been paid in full. Therefore, to alleviate this, it is obvious that the bailiff will have to be more “forceful” in the enforcement of the fine in order to “encourage” immediate payment in full. Naturally, this leads to a significant increase in the number of complaints being made against the bailiff. However, under the proposals this may well be resolved. I will deal with this further on.
From personal experience, the proposed fee scale is broadly what is now (wrongly) being charged by a bailiff when enforcing unpaid council tax. It is less than is currently being charged by bailiffs enforcing unpaid parking tickets and is almost identical to the recently increased fees charged by the four companies contracted by HMCS to enforce court imposed fines.
Under the fee scale it is proposed that a percentage fee be added for debts over £1,000. I am not persuaded that this should be added for domestic debts and should instead, be reserved only for businesses.
A very important point to consider with the proposed fee scale is the fee of £105 which can only be charged if seized goods have actually been sold. There is no fee proposed for attending to remove, removal or storage. This is very significant indeed because; under this proposal, there is little incentive for the bailiff to actually remove goods and instead, payment of the debt is to be encouraged. This alone, must invariably lead to a significant decrease in the level of complaints made against bailiffs.
Proportionality:
I have concerns about proportionality as there will almost certainly be situations where the fees are excessive and disproportionate to the amount of the debt and this will have to be addressed by way of further discussions.
Two years ago, I made a Freedom of Information request to approx 130 local authorities and from their responses, it would seem that the average Liability Order for unpaid council tax is approx £640 and for non domestic rates is £2,440. I would estimate that the average unpaid PCN is significantly less at approx £110.
Pro Rate Payments to the creditor:
One area that I am pleased to see in the Consultation is the proposal for pro rata payments to be made to the creditor. This is significant for a number of reasons. Currently, as mentioned above, the companies contracted by HMCS to enforce unpaid criminal court fines are permitted to accept a payment plan of approx 4-6 months (depending on the “warrant handling” period) but in reality, this is not favourable to the bailiff as all payments by the debtor must be allocated to clear the court fine first. Under the pro rata proposal, this will change and should lead to more payment proposals being accepted....and naturally, this should lead to a significant reduction in complaints.
With the enforcement of council tax, the pro rata proposal will almost certainly make a significant change to the way in which bailiffs are currently acting. At present, under the current fee scale, all bailiff fees can be deducted first before paying the balance to the local authority. Sadly, this is subject to the most awful abuse of the fee scale in a number of ways. For example; if a bailiff is unable to gain access into a property, we are constantly seeing cases where the bailiff will instead, “levy” upon a car that is not owned by the debtor and in doing so; charge a “levy fee” and almost always, an “enforcement fee” to the account. It is commonplace to see fees of approx £250 being charged under this highly questionable method of enforcement. Even though these fees are disputed, the bailiff company will nonetheless, retain these fees that have been collected from the debtor, and pay the balance to their local authority client. Another area of concern that we are seeing from “less reputable” companies is where a payment plan is practically at an end and where the bailiff makes a further wholly unnecessary “attending to remove” visit to the debtors premises on the basis that a payment made many months before had been one or two days late and that the debtor had therefore “apparently defaulted” on their payment agreement. It is not uncommon to see fees of £150 upwards being charged and once again, the bailiff company will retain this “disputed fee”.
Multiple warrants
The companies under contract with HMCS to enforce unpaid criminal fines are permitted to charge an “administration fee” for each Distress Warrant that they are enforcing for the same debtor but they cannot charge “multiple fees” at the enforcement visit stage. My personal opinion is that this same situation should apply for all other debts.
Exceptional Costs:
Under the Consultation MOJ are seeking views from the public to determine the need for “exceptional costs” to be charged. This is an opportunity for the public to voice their concerns at the dreadful abuse by some High Court Enforcement Companies of Paragraph 12 (Miscellaneous Fees) under the High Court Enforcement Officers Regulations 2004. This must come to an end and instead, “exceptional costs” should mean exceptional and furthermore, there should be a requirement that an application be made to the court in each and every case where an “exceptional cost” is required.
Inflation:
I do not agree with the proposal that the fee structure should be updated annually. With arrears of council tax, it should be remembered that the debtor will incur a summons cost of approx £95 before the debt is passed to a bailiff to enforce and with non domestic rates the figure is approx £250. The proposed bailiff fee will add a further sum of either £75 or £305 (if an enforcement visit is made). If bailiff fees were increased by approx 10% per annum this would mean that the fee scale would significantly increase by the 3rd year to over £100 for the administration stage and £316 at the enforcement stage. It is my understanding that the fee scale under the HMCS Contracts for the enforcement of court fines was reviewed after 3 years and the level of fees increased by approx 15%. This same fee review should apply under this proposal.
Proposed fee scale for High Court Enforcement:
Sadly, I believe that there has been insufficient research done on the level of proposed fees for enforcing judgements that are transferred to the High Court for enforcement. Under the proposal, if a sale proceeds a fee of £510 can be charged. This figure is 5 times as great as that being proposed for all other debts. How this can be justified I do not know...and the most obvious area of concern will be that HCEO’s would have a significant financial incentive to remove and sell goods. This cannot be right.
On the bailiff section of the Consumer Action Group forum there has been a significant increase in the number of complaints made against High Court enforcement companies in particular; relating to the level of fees being charged. By way of example; a few weeks ago, a debtor posted details on the forum of a case where a certain HCEO company charged fees of approx £5,000 for enforcing a CCJ of approx £2,500. Interestingly, the bailiff had valued the levied goods at just £300!! Of serious concern is that one year after receiving notification from the enforcement company that the account had been settled in full, the debtor is unable to obtain a Certificate of Satisfaction. It would seem that the High Court Enforcement Company have not as yet paid over to the creditor the full amount required to clear the judgement and interest.
Chapter 9: High Court and County Court Jurisdiction: Question 54.
At present, all county court judgements under £600 may only be enforced by a county court bailiff and the amount of the judgement increases by £100 if the creditor requests a warrant. Judgements over £600 can be “transferred up” for a High Court Enforcement Officer (HCEO) to enforce. The consultation paper is seeking views on whether all judgements...irrespective of the value....should be enforced by an HCEO. Personally, I am very much against this proposal and it is important to note that if the proposed fee scale for high court debts is imposed, this would add a fee of not less than £750 to a CCJ of just £100. If a debtor is unable to afford to pay £100 to avoid a judgement being registered again him, I cannot see how it could be possible for him or her to raise a sum of 7 times this figure. My personal opinion is that enforcement by way of the High Court should be reserved for significant judgements of not less than £5,000.
To conclude:
Once again, this Consultation is of vital importance.
Consumer Action Group intends to respond formally to the consultation paper in May and in doing so will be taking into consideration comments made by the public on the forum.
We would therefore urge you to visit the links below:
Thank you for taking the time to read this Newsletter.
Tomtubby
There is a new forum to discuss the consultation paper and at present, there six sub-forums as follows:
There will not be another opportunity to have good bailiff law and to protect vulnerable debtors from aggressive bailiffs and this consultation will give the public the opportunity to influence change.
You can submit your own response to the consultation on-line HERE
If you want more help, advice or even just some moral support then come to The Consumer Action Group website where we offer help on pretty well every consumer problem COMPLETELY FREE.
Chapter 5: Costs of Enforcement Related Services: Questions 33-45
Any increase in the statutory fee will not be welcome by debtors or indeed the advice sector. At present, there is a completely different statutory fee scale for the collection of unpaid council tax, parking charge notices, criminal fines imposed by the magistrate’s court and child support agency arrears. This is complete and utter nonsense and MOJ are hoping to overcome this by introducing a set fee scale.
If this Consultation had been issued 2 or 3 years ago, I would very likely have been highly critical of the proposed fee scale. However, in the past year since this awful recession has impacted on the vast majority of individuals, it is sadly the case that many bailiff companies are routinely “interpreting” the fee scale in a way that never used to happen. As an example, it is fast becoming “commonplace” for a bailiff to charge an “enforcement fee” of approx £150-£250 (or even more) when making an initial visit to a property to enforce a Liability Order for unpaid council tax. There is of course no provision within the current statutory fee scale for an “enforcement fee” and, in reality, this is really an “attending to remove fee” which should not be charged unless a prior valid levy had been made on the debtor’s goods.
The enforcement of an unpaid parking charge notice is much worse with some of the “less reputable” companies attempting to charge “attending to remove” fees at each visit!! This abuse of the fee scale was rarely ever seen before the recession and now, we have many cases where a bailiff is attempting to charge fees in excess of £500 to enforce an unpaid parking ticket of just £120. If the debtor cannot afford to pay...their vehicle is removed and sold. Without a car, many debtors are finding it difficult to continue with their employment and with bank lending at an all time low, they are unable to borrow money to buy a replacement vehicle and this is leading to further serious debt related problems.
Approx 4 years ago HMCS awarded Contracts to 4 companies (Marston Group, Philips Collection Services, Swift Credit Services and Excel Enforcement) for the enforcement of unpaid Magistrate Court Fines. At the time, I was very critical of the fees that HMCS agreed that each company could charge the debtor which consisted of an “administration fee” of £75 followed by a “one off” figure of £200 if an “enforcement” visit was made. Recently, the fees have increased to £85 and £215. I was most critical of the “admin” fee which I had wrongly thought of a being a charge for sending a letter. In fact; this fee is to set up an account and administer and monitor a payment plan etc. However, the problem that we find with the enforcement of these unpaid court fines is the difficulty in getting a payment arrangement agreed once the case has been allocated to a bailiff for enforcement and the reason for this is because; the HMCS contracts specifically provide that from all payments made to the bailiff, the court fine must be discharged first. Therefore, if a bailiff is to agree a payment proposal over 3 months etc, he will know that he will not receive his commission until after the fine has been paid in full. Therefore, to alleviate this, it is obvious that the bailiff will have to be more “forceful” in the enforcement of the fine in order to “encourage” immediate payment in full. Naturally, this leads to a significant increase in the number of complaints being made against the bailiff. However, under the proposals this may well be resolved. I will deal with this further on.
From personal experience, the proposed fee scale is broadly what is now (wrongly) being charged by a bailiff when enforcing unpaid council tax. It is less than is currently being charged by bailiffs enforcing unpaid parking tickets and is almost identical to the recently increased fees charged by the four companies contracted by HMCS to enforce court imposed fines.
Under the fee scale it is proposed that a percentage fee be added for debts over £1,000. I am not persuaded that this should be added for domestic debts and should instead, be reserved only for businesses.
A very important point to consider with the proposed fee scale is the fee of £105 which can only be charged if seized goods have actually been sold. There is no fee proposed for attending to remove, removal or storage. This is very significant indeed because; under this proposal, there is little incentive for the bailiff to actually remove goods and instead, payment of the debt is to be encouraged. This alone, must invariably lead to a significant decrease in the level of complaints made against bailiffs.
Proportionality:
I have concerns about proportionality as there will almost certainly be situations where the fees are excessive and disproportionate to the amount of the debt and this will have to be addressed by way of further discussions.
Two years ago, I made a Freedom of Information request to approx 130 local authorities and from their responses, it would seem that the average Liability Order for unpaid council tax is approx £640 and for non domestic rates is £2,440. I would estimate that the average unpaid PCN is significantly less at approx £110.
Pro Rate Payments to the creditor:
One area that I am pleased to see in the Consultation is the proposal for pro rata payments to be made to the creditor. This is significant for a number of reasons. Currently, as mentioned above, the companies contracted by HMCS to enforce unpaid criminal court fines are permitted to accept a payment plan of approx 4-6 months (depending on the “warrant handling” period) but in reality, this is not favourable to the bailiff as all payments by the debtor must be allocated to clear the court fine first. Under the pro rata proposal, this will change and should lead to more payment proposals being accepted....and naturally, this should lead to a significant reduction in complaints.
With the enforcement of council tax, the pro rata proposal will almost certainly make a significant change to the way in which bailiffs are currently acting. At present, under the current fee scale, all bailiff fees can be deducted first before paying the balance to the local authority. Sadly, this is subject to the most awful abuse of the fee scale in a number of ways. For example; if a bailiff is unable to gain access into a property, we are constantly seeing cases where the bailiff will instead, “levy” upon a car that is not owned by the debtor and in doing so; charge a “levy fee” and almost always, an “enforcement fee” to the account. It is commonplace to see fees of approx £250 being charged under this highly questionable method of enforcement. Even though these fees are disputed, the bailiff company will nonetheless, retain these fees that have been collected from the debtor, and pay the balance to their local authority client. Another area of concern that we are seeing from “less reputable” companies is where a payment plan is practically at an end and where the bailiff makes a further wholly unnecessary “attending to remove” visit to the debtors premises on the basis that a payment made many months before had been one or two days late and that the debtor had therefore “apparently defaulted” on their payment agreement. It is not uncommon to see fees of £150 upwards being charged and once again, the bailiff company will retain this “disputed fee”.
Multiple warrants
The companies under contract with HMCS to enforce unpaid criminal fines are permitted to charge an “administration fee” for each Distress Warrant that they are enforcing for the same debtor but they cannot charge “multiple fees” at the enforcement visit stage. My personal opinion is that this same situation should apply for all other debts.
Exceptional Costs:
Under the Consultation MOJ are seeking views from the public to determine the need for “exceptional costs” to be charged. This is an opportunity for the public to voice their concerns at the dreadful abuse by some High Court Enforcement Companies of Paragraph 12 (Miscellaneous Fees) under the High Court Enforcement Officers Regulations 2004. This must come to an end and instead, “exceptional costs” should mean exceptional and furthermore, there should be a requirement that an application be made to the court in each and every case where an “exceptional cost” is required.
Inflation:
I do not agree with the proposal that the fee structure should be updated annually. With arrears of council tax, it should be remembered that the debtor will incur a summons cost of approx £95 before the debt is passed to a bailiff to enforce and with non domestic rates the figure is approx £250. The proposed bailiff fee will add a further sum of either £75 or £305 (if an enforcement visit is made). If bailiff fees were increased by approx 10% per annum this would mean that the fee scale would significantly increase by the 3rd year to over £100 for the administration stage and £316 at the enforcement stage. It is my understanding that the fee scale under the HMCS Contracts for the enforcement of court fines was reviewed after 3 years and the level of fees increased by approx 15%. This same fee review should apply under this proposal.
Proposed fee scale for High Court Enforcement:
Sadly, I believe that there has been insufficient research done on the level of proposed fees for enforcing judgements that are transferred to the High Court for enforcement. Under the proposal, if a sale proceeds a fee of £510 can be charged. This figure is 5 times as great as that being proposed for all other debts. How this can be justified I do not know...and the most obvious area of concern will be that HCEO’s would have a significant financial incentive to remove and sell goods. This cannot be right.
On the bailiff section of the Consumer Action Group forum there has been a significant increase in the number of complaints made against High Court enforcement companies in particular; relating to the level of fees being charged. By way of example; a few weeks ago, a debtor posted details on the forum of a case where a certain HCEO company charged fees of approx £5,000 for enforcing a CCJ of approx £2,500. Interestingly, the bailiff had valued the levied goods at just £300!! Of serious concern is that one year after receiving notification from the enforcement company that the account had been settled in full, the debtor is unable to obtain a Certificate of Satisfaction. It would seem that the High Court Enforcement Company have not as yet paid over to the creditor the full amount required to clear the judgement and interest.
Chapter 9: High Court and County Court Jurisdiction: Question 54.
At present, all county court judgements under £600 may only be enforced by a county court bailiff and the amount of the judgement increases by £100 if the creditor requests a warrant. Judgements over £600 can be “transferred up” for a High Court Enforcement Officer (HCEO) to enforce. The consultation paper is seeking views on whether all judgements...irrespective of the value....should be enforced by an HCEO. Personally, I am very much against this proposal and it is important to note that if the proposed fee scale for high court debts is imposed, this would add a fee of not less than £750 to a CCJ of just £100. If a debtor is unable to afford to pay £100 to avoid a judgement being registered again him, I cannot see how it could be possible for him or her to raise a sum of 7 times this figure. My personal opinion is that enforcement by way of the High Court should be reserved for significant judgements of not less than £5,000.
To conclude:
Once again, this Consultation is of vital importance.
Consumer Action Group intends to respond formally to the consultation paper in May and in doing so will be taking into consideration comments made by the public on the forum.
We would therefore urge you to visit the links below:
Thank you for taking the time to read this Newsletter.
Tomtubby
There is a new forum to discuss the consultation paper and at present, there six sub-forums as follows:
There will not be another opportunity to have good bailiff law and to protect vulnerable debtors from aggressive bailiffs and this consultation will give the public the opportunity to influence change.
You can submit your own response to the consultation on-line HERE
If you want more help, advice or even just some moral support then come to The Consumer Action Group website where we offer help on pretty well every consumer problem COMPLETELY FREE.
Out of the mouths of...
Little
Girl On Plane
A Prime Minister was seated next to a little girl on an airplane so she turned to her and said, "Do you want to talk? Flights go quicker if you strike up a conversation with your fellow passenger."
A Prime Minister was seated next to a little girl on an airplane so she turned to her and said, "Do you want to talk? Flights go quicker if you strike up a conversation with your fellow passenger."
The
little girl, who had just started to read her book, replied to the total
stranger, "What would you want to talk about?"
"Oh, I don't know," said the Minister. "How about global warming, universal health care, or stimulus packages?" as she smiled smugly.
"Oh, I don't know," said the Minister. "How about global warming, universal health care, or stimulus packages?" as she smiled smugly.
"OK," she
said. "Those could be interesting topics but let me ask you a question first. A
horse, a cow, and a deer all eat the same stuff - grass. Yet a deer excretes
little pellets, while a cow turns out a flat patty, but a horse produces clumps.
Why do you suppose that is?"
The PM
visibly surprised by the little girl's intelligence, thinks about it and says,
"Hmmm, I have no idea."
To which
the little girl replies, "Do you really feel qualified to discuss global
warming, universal health care, or the economy, when you don't know shit?" and
then she went back to reading her book.
What Labour did for Britain, Labor has repeated Down Under
COMMENT FROM ROSS GREENWOOD (Financial presenter on
Australian morning TV show)
Reality pill needed for Australians
This is really well put, in terms the average punter can understand ...
it cuts thru political doublespeak and provides clarity
USA Today
Lesson # 1:
Why the U.S. was downgraded:
* U.S. Tax revenue: $2,170,000,000,000
* Fed budget: $3,820,000,000,000
* New debt: $ 1,650,000,000,000
* National debt: $14,271,000,000,000
* Recent budget cuts: $ 38,500,000,000
Let's now remove 8 zeros and pretend it's a household budget:
* Annual family income: $21,700
* Money the family spent: $38,200
* New debt on the credit card: $16,500
* Outstanding balance on the credit card: $142,710
* Total budget cuts: $385
Got It ?????
OK now Lesson # 2:
Here's another way to look at the Debt Ceiling:
Let's say, you come home from work and find there has been a sewer backup in your neighbourhood ... and your home has sewage all the way up to your ceilings.
What do you think you should do?
Lesson # 1:
Why the U.S. was downgraded:
* U.S. Tax revenue: $2,170,000,000,000
* Fed budget: $3,820,000,000,000
* New debt: $ 1,650,000,000,000
* National debt: $14,271,000,000,000
* Recent budget cuts: $ 38,500,000,000
Let's now remove 8 zeros and pretend it's a household budget:
* Annual family income: $21,700
* Money the family spent: $38,200
* New debt on the credit card: $16,500
* Outstanding balance on the credit card: $142,710
* Total budget cuts: $385
Got It ?????
OK now Lesson # 2:
Here's another way to look at the Debt Ceiling:
Let's say, you come home from work and find there has been a sewer backup in your neighbourhood ... and your home has sewage all the way up to your ceilings.
What do you think you should do?
Raise the ceilings, or pump out the (ummmm) "effluent"?
Lesson 3 : (Australia today FROM ROSS GREENWOOD, Quoted by: Ross Greenwood of Money News..)
Right now the Federal Government is at pains to tell everyone - including us the mug-punters and the International Monetary Fund, that it will not exceed its own, self-imposed, borrowing limits. How much? $200 billion. And here's a worry.
Lesson 3 : (Australia today FROM ROSS GREENWOOD, Quoted by: Ross Greenwood of Money News..)
Right now the Federal Government is at pains to tell everyone - including us the mug-punters and the International Monetary Fund, that it will not exceed its own, self-imposed, borrowing limits. How much? $200 billion. And here's a worry.
If you work in a bank's money market operation; or if you are a politician; the millions turn into billions and it rolls off the tip of the tongue a bit too easily, but every dollar that is borrowed, some time, has to be repaid. By you, by me and by the rest of the country.
Just after 5 o'clock tonight I did a bit of math for Jason Morrison (Sydney radio presenter). But it's so staggering its worth repeating now.
First thought; Gillard, Swan, Wong, before that Rudd, all of the Labor Cabinet, call these temporary borrowings, a temporary deficit.
Remember Those Words : Temporary Deficit.
The total Government debt will end up around $200 billion. So here's a very basic calculation... I used a home loan calculator to work it out… it's that simple...$200 billion is $2 hundred thousand million.
The current 10 year Government bond rate is 4.67 per cent. I worked the loan out over a period of 20 years. Now here's where it gets scary... really scary.
The repayments on $200 billion, come to more than one and a quarter billion dollars - every month - for 20 years. It works out we - as taxpayers - will be repaying $15.4 billion in interest and principal every year .. $733 for every man woman and child - every year. The total interest bill over the 20 years is - get this - $108 billion.
Remember, this is a Government, that just 4 years ago, had NO debt. NO debt.
In fact it had enough money to create the Future Fund, to pay the future liabilities of public servants' superannuation, and it had enough to stick $20 billion into the Building Australia Fund .....
A note was sent to me which explains that the six leading members of the Government, from Ms Gillard down, have a collective work experience of 181 years, but only 13 in the private sector.
If you take out of those 13 years the number that were spent as trade union lawyers, 11, only two years were spent in the private sector.
So out of those 181 years:
- no years spent running their own business
- no years spent starting their own business
- no years spent as a director of a family business or a company
- no years as a director of a public company
- no years in a senior position in a public company
- no years in a senior position in a private company
- no years working in corporate finance
- no years in corporate or business restructuring
- no years working in or with a bank
- no years of experience in the capital markets
- no years in a stock-broking firm
- no years in negotiating debt facilities with banks
- no years running a small business
- no years at the World Bank or IMF or OECD
- no years in Treasury or Finance.
But these people have plunged Australia into unprecedented debt Well, in a way you can't blame them. It's clear the electorate did not do their homework, because the Government is there by right. Ah, but they are Labor and people vote for them because Labor is good for the working family - right???
If you have read this you may like to pass it on to your friends to help educate a little as you, them and I, will be repaying the above.
Tuesday, 17 April 2012
Make bad bailiffs pay
e-petition
Returning charges from bailiff Companies
Responsible department: Ministry of Justice
The bailiff companies charge the
debtor far too much and expect the debtor to pay this on top of there
original debt, the original debt can quadruple due to this and cause
more distress to debtors, i would like to see bailiff companies return
charges same as the banks do.Free Parking Tickets - Brown sauce and no HAM
After the fiasco of the trams off line, the unreadable websites of the Council, Lieber is crawling up the bottoms of the new Entrepreneurs with the following edicts.
On the 1st April 2012, Pam Badloser from
Blackpool Muslim Council confirmed that 8 parking permits, with no restriction
on the vehicle used, had been issued to the Noor A Madina Mosque permitting an
hour’s free parking on Blackpool South car park every Friday. Also, as another concession
to the Established Muslim Mosques of Englandstan that all Blackpool eating
houses will cease with immediate effect from selling the disgusting Bacon Butty. Ramjamdin will also begin and last to this
date 2020. Fasting is now compulsory for
everyone except fat, illiterate Mullahs.
Anyone raising an eyelid will be branded a racist and ordered to give
back Aden to the family of Keith Vaz.
NEWS FLASH: Gorgeous
George to switch on Illuminations. All Preyer
Mats are to face east, towards Bradford Vest. And the tower is to be converted
to a minaret. The Town Criers post is to
be replaced by an Imam Sli’de Inde Bakdor and compulsory prayers will start at
0530 tomorrow. The Crier’s horn will be
implanted in the Council Leader's Chamber. (Ow! That’ll hurt, I hope.)
Monday, 16 April 2012
Following Gorgeous George into Parliament
Maybe Blackpool's KwaZulu-TTL new Minister for
co-operative governance and traditional affairs Nomsa Dube called on the
national department of science and technology to investigate the causes of
lightning after seven people died in lightning strikes."We will do an investigation and talk to the department of science and technology on what is the cause of the lightning, and if it only happened to the previously disadvantaged" said Dube. She was visiting Strange Park in Bundustan/Lancs where seven people from two families died after being struck by lightning on Sunday. They were all running around naked with iron trinkets pierced through their genitalia after the Met Office had said that the likelihood of sudden catastrophic thunder was in the hands of the gods. "Scientists from the department could perhaps help us and come up with instruments that could help community members protect themselves against lightning. "The department has dealt with floods and fires, but lightning was new to us," said Mother of the New Order, Nomsa Dube.
All I can say after the fiasco of nearby Bradford Vest - "Our country is clearly in excellent hands." (With thanks to the Natal Times - it's a newspaper and not a congenital complaint). Perhaps the Lieber Party should employ Ms Dube as a co-ordinator for Joined Up Thinking? She can share a surgery with Chris- do I have to do that- Maughan.
Coming in a field near you - Planes to replace rail
Due to the threat from the Middle Easters these New Planes will run on a revolutionary fuel derived from Be-Ans. To get the fuel to a volume sufficient to get these monsters across the Mersey passengers will be wind tested. It will be compulsory for each and every passenger to have two tins of FaRts baked ****s with added chilli for good afterburn. Babes in arms must have good human tit juice on permanent supply. If they tire or fall asleep, volunteers from the male contingent will be asked to replace the luckily little buggers. Experiments with dogs indicate that their contributions should be left on the children's playing field or your local rugby clubs pitch. Gay Politicians will be barred pro temp until it can be determined if Matelots can be found with purity of discharge to drive a New Generation of Transport into the Future. Politicians as a rule have been found to be so full of shi'ite that their contribution is somewhat indiscriminate.
The Secret Test Flights will take place from Blackpool airport on the 1st of April 2013. Tickets from Nigerian Banks on a very expensive number to be announced in a spam email. If you have not got your own computer, use the ones at work if you have a job. Otherwise your local MP will give you Free Access via the expenses already fraudulently taken from Pensioners.
Saturday, 14 April 2012
The Times they are a changing - for the worse
In ancient Blackpool, there is a humanitarian called Harold, who sagaciously pointed this video out. What this courageous young English lady is saying ought to be the clarion call of every English person, not the preaching of hatred which the immigrants in this film espouse against the interest of the indigenous British. If political correctness means the denial of this, the harsh realism and truth of what is happening, and worse, what inevitably will come to pass will be the horrifying edifice of Sharia Law and backward education. There is going to a holocaust in Europe, a terrible acceptance that all these new laws on equality and racial harmony are but a certain nail in the coffin of our, European collective, identities, traditions and cultures. If you think these sentiments are worth putting me and the millions who think, through life's experiences, as I do, then lock us up and throw away the keys.
Just remember, that many of us stood and faced terrorism when so many were preaching appeasement.
We have laws which demand, unless in certain cases such as child abuse and rape, the accused can see the face of the accuser. In this film our society and cultures are being attacked, a young lady is insulted and castigated by ignorance and stupidity by those all to willing to hide their faces for insulting and slavish adherence to a religion that is debase, and be there not a single person in blue to uphold her rights.
If the people of Ancient Blackpool want a Mosque, let them build one next to a Christian Church in Saudi Arabia or Pakistan where Christians are being murdered and intimidated. A bit like being a Prodestant in Southern Ireland.
Thursday, 12 April 2012
More SPAM aimed at U
Dear
Santander customer,
The bank congratulates you as a devoted customer and rewards
you with a shopping cheque of 200 pounds for the previous Easter ,
but unfortunately we were unable to send your reward cheque due
to a possible error your home address information.
This might be due to either of the following reasons:
- A recent change in your personal information .
- Submitting invalid information during the initial sign up process.
Consequently, we placed a temporary restriction on your account.
We did this to protect your account from any fraudulent activity please click below .Please verify your information
The bank congratulates you as a devoted customer and rewards
you with a shopping cheque of 200 pounds for the previous Easter ,
but unfortunately we were unable to send your reward cheque due
to a possible error your home address information.
This might be due to either of the following reasons:
- A recent change in your personal information .
- Submitting invalid information during the initial sign up process.
Consequently, we placed a temporary restriction on your account.
We did this to protect your account from any fraudulent activity please click below .Please verify your information
Issued for UK
use only | © Santander group 2002 - 2012.
THIS IS SPAM WITH THE LINK REMOVED.
PLEASE DELETE OR FORWARD TO SANTANDER
PLEASE DELETE OR FORWARD TO SANTANDER
Water rats on the make
United Utilities'
directors earn £5.2m June 21, 2011
Read more at: http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/news/business/s/1424231_united-utilities-directors-earn-52m
Read more at: http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/news/business/s/1424231_united-utilities-directors-earn-52m
United Utilities
directors earned £5.21m in the 12 months to March 31, up from £4.24m
the previous year, new figures show. Departing chief executive Philip
Green received more than £2.8m in the period, made up of £812,000
base salary, a £959,100 bonus and £30,200 in other benefits,
including a car allowance and health insurance. Mr Green, who left
the company in March and is now a non-executive director at
construction giant Carillion, also received £827,000 as part of a
long-term incentive scheme and £203,000 in pension
contributions.
We have become a Nation of Wingers (the beauty of owning a blog is you can deliberately misspell words to everyone's annoyance)without Reason, but not in this instance. Here is another sample of disjointed rip-offs. An industry that charges it customers, legally, for rainwater falling on the roof when they don't have one? Can that be right? Whom do I address? The occupier of multiple occupancies, the flat dweller, the dweller of the high rise flat. No matter how we look at our bills, in this situation no ways can you say that such flat dwellers have a roof. Is this idiocy a matter of not being able to string together a series of words that can clearly define the nature of a bill? Water Bills are worded in such a way you would have thought it was meant for a thieving Westminster resident and not a semi literate, poor sighted pensioner with encroaching senility! The document contains this expression and is thus called a charge, with and for rainwater landing on the roof. In Blackpool it averages out at about £60 pa. per flat. If the Utilities need this money to pay the wages of the bosses, they should say so. This is not equitable as seldom can equability be achieved when dealing with poverty. No matter how you charge in a pseudo-socialist society, the bills will be disproportionate and in some cases unfair.
We have become a Nation of Wingers (the beauty of owning a blog is you can deliberately misspell words to everyone's annoyance)without Reason, but not in this instance. Here is another sample of disjointed rip-offs. An industry that charges it customers, legally, for rainwater falling on the roof when they don't have one? Can that be right? Whom do I address? The occupier of multiple occupancies, the flat dweller, the dweller of the high rise flat. No matter how we look at our bills, in this situation no ways can you say that such flat dwellers have a roof. Is this idiocy a matter of not being able to string together a series of words that can clearly define the nature of a bill? Water Bills are worded in such a way you would have thought it was meant for a thieving Westminster resident and not a semi literate, poor sighted pensioner with encroaching senility! The document contains this expression and is thus called a charge, with and for rainwater landing on the roof. In Blackpool it averages out at about £60 pa. per flat. If the Utilities need this money to pay the wages of the bosses, they should say so. This is not equitable as seldom can equability be achieved when dealing with poverty. No matter how you charge in a pseudo-socialist society, the bills will be disproportionate and in some cases unfair.
This is just part of
one utility that over rewards executives and gives scant service to
its customers. Perhaps some of the millions of gallon of water
gushing out of splinted mains pipes should be blocked with and by the
pay packets of the fat executive wallets. Also, it is time that
consumers learned that they have to pay for the goods and services
they use, but it has to be proportionate and not obscured by
sentimentality as so much is today.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)