Wednesday, 5 December 2012

 
Last week, Boston Eye highlighted the farce surrounding the summonses issued by Boston Borough Council on behalf of the Boston “Improvement" District – which saw people ordered to attend court after being double billed for their compulsory “levy” … billed even though they had already paid … and in one case summonsed even though the alleged “defaulter” had been dead for seven years. On Monday afternoon, the victims turned up at Boston Magistrates’ Court - only to find that the farce was to enter a second act. Local businessman Darron Abbott – a former BID director who was asked to represent some of the wronged businessmen and women – t akes up the story …
What regular observers of Boston BID and Boston Borough Council have expected at the Magistrates’ court on Monday afternoon when the two powers flexed their muscles in to bullying those business that were trying to make a stand against them?
Yes –they would have been correct – a complete and utter shambles.
I had been authorised by a number of businesses to speak on their behalf, and others had asked me to be there for support and assistance.
As everyone arrived and tried to book in with the court staff,  it rapidly became apparent that they were not expecting us, which was confirmed in the listings (see right, and click on the photo to enlarge it) for the afternoon session. Not one name for non-payment of the BID levy was included.
In hindsight, we should all have walked out at this point.
It was clear that the council and BID had not expected any one to attend  –  and for it be simply a matter of rubber stamping the paperwork and the bailiff being employed.
No one from BID was in attendance it appears.
The manager, Niall Armstrong, was most likely taking a hard earned rest after the weekend’s Christmas market (strange, I know, considering the Chairman Alan Mr Ellis's,  comments) and according to Mrs Ellis, Mr Ellis had a business to run.
The proceedings were left down to a rather nervous and sheepish Mr Graham Cooper (Senior Revenues Officer) from Boston Borough Council – whom, if he was not an employee of Boston Borough Council, may have deserved a little sympathy for being put in the position.
From the group that was gathered it appeared that there were a number of reasons why people had attended to fight their corners.
The widow of the deceased person of seven years attended and made her apologies for her late husband.
Mr Cooper was remorseless in his efforts – firstly stating that she should have let the council know beforehand – and when she replied she had told the council and even provided copies of death certificates.  Mr Cooper became very aloof until she asked him how many times should she have to tell the council before in the end you give up.
Mr Cooper then said she should take the matter up with BID.
And three people attended who had receipts in hand from Boston Borough Council for the payment of the levy.
Mr Cooper turned very sharply on them stating they should not be there and should run off to the council to sort it out.
When it was explained that they had rung the council and left a message on the business rates answer machine, but no one had ever returned the call, Mr Cooper started to get very frustrated, and told them they should have attended the Municipal Buildings.
The response was that they hadbut were turned away because no one was available to speak to them and were told they could make an appointment at a later date.
By this time Mr Cooper seemed to be getting a little angry.
He stated that: "Margaret was at the council right now, and if they wanted they should contact her."
Can you imagine the look on his face when I rang the council and asked to speak to Margaret and got the answer phone?
I then rang the council again and was told she was not there as she was only part-time.
After considerable and eventually heated discussion, the time was approaching 2.45pm and the summons stipulated a 1-30pm attendance.
People were becoming frustrated, as I am sure they all had businesses to run (thanks, Mrs Ellis, I will have to use that one more often.)
Mr Cooper was led off to the court to discuss the matter with the magistrates – along with the documents, apparently.
After quite a while the attendees were called into court.
I was told I could not speak for those I had letters for and– that I would not be allowed into the court with the others, as Mr Cooper had complained that I had intimidated him. When I questioned why I could not assist these people,  the magistrate said that it was because I was not a qualified solicitor –although I am not sure if this is correct.
The magistrates were not interested at all in what anyone had to say – merely in handing down judgements.
They did, however, withdraw the demand from the deceased person, but Mr Cooper simply stated they would re-bill the amount in his widow's name … and did not even offer an apology.
People were astounded that the British judicial system did not allow a right of reply or to be able to state why they were withholding payment.
So all of those listed yesterday now have a judgement against them and are expected to pay.
Let’s hope BID choose to spend this ill-gotten gain a little more wisely than they have done in the past.
And one final request to both organisations.
Could they get their acts together and a least one take responsibility rather than referring people backwards and forwards?
One thing to come out of this seems to have been the NO campaign will now gather momentum for next year’s ballot on BID’s future.

You can write to us at boston.eye@googlemail.comYour e-mails will be treated in confidence and published anonymously if requested.
Our former blog is archived at: http://bostoneyelincolnshire.blogspot.com

 

 

 

 

 

 

No comments:

Post a Comment