strawman

1. In September 2010, Mr Oxborough claimed that I, a human being, owed Council Tax. I stated that I would
certainly pay any lawful debt and asked for evidence of that debt to be shown. No such evidence was provided
during the very generous 28-day period specified. In law, that constitutes tacit, legally-binding agreement that
no such debt exists and Mr Oxborough was made aware of that fact, both at the start of the 28-day period and
subsequently.
2. Mr Oxborough refused to accept that fact and asked Bury Magistrates Court to rule on the matter, which they
did, stating that I was not the person against whom the claim was being made.
3. It appears that Mr Oxborough refuses to accept the ruling of the court as he is still getting his agents to harass
and threaten me.
I therefore, wish to make a further complaint and I again request that you press charges of continuing harassment
against Steven Oxborough and his agent Natalie Brookes of Rossendale. I attach herewith the harassing letter
from Natalie Brookes and a copy of my reply to that letter.
Patrick
The response from Suffolk Constabulary was a phone call that evening:
The caller was Sgt. Keith Grant who stated that Steven Oxborough had not been spoken to following either of the
complaints because Suffolk Constabulary do not consider it to be harassment if the person claimed to be doing
the harassing believed that he was entitled to perform those actions. (I leave you to decide whether or not that
meets the requirements of Common Law and to decide if Suffolk Constabulary are being influenced by the fact
that they are funded through Forest Heath District Council). When I pointed out that the actions to date appeared
to constitute, harassment, intimidation, demanding money with menaces and fraudulent deception, he did express
the personal opinion that a criminal offence had indeed been committed.
He stated that he was unable to understand the information provided in my written complaint. I explained it to him
in simple terms and he then said that he could not understand the explanation. I will leave you to form your own
opinion of the calibre of Sgt. Grant who is the decision-maker in this matter.
He asked me three questions which seem inappropriate to me: Do I own the property in which I live? How long
have I lived there? and What is my date of birth? If you can see there relevance of these questions in relation to a
complaint of harassment, then please let me know as the relevance is not obvious to me.
I then quoted the following two reports of the actions of Rossendale bailiffs which I had come across on the web:
“I had the misfortune of the local bailiff from Rossendale CB appearing on the doorstep with exorbitant demands
for over £200 in addition to the NE Lincolnshire Council tax debt. The bailiff threatened me that he "will have ten
big blokes sat outside your house tomorrow at dawn to break in and clear your house" , he threatened my wife
that she would end up in prison were the debt not paid . Also he said he would be coming back with the Police to
force entry and take the goods for the outstanding debt.”
and:
“The knock at the door came from a Jason Shaw who works for Rossendales. He spoke to my partner and
threatened her with actual violence. When I arrived home I called this Jason Shaw and asked why he would use
threatening behaviour. His reply was "where is my fucking money?". He then said he was going to arrive at my
house in the morning to seize goods. He knocked at the door in the morning and said "I want my fucking money
(or else)". I turned away and he grabbed me from behind and swung a punch at me.”
I then asked what I would be entitled to do if I were assaulted by Rossendale’s bailiff. At this point there was an
immediate and major change in his demeanour. Previously, I would assess his attitude as being amused
contempt, but it promptly switched to what I would assess as being very cautious and defensive. His reply was
that I was entitled to use a ‘reasonable level of force’ to protect myself. When asked what actions would be
deemed to be ‘reasonable’ he stated that it would depend entirely on the circumstances.
I then asked him if Rossendale’s bailiff would be entitled to forcibly break into my home, he stated that it would
depend on what the court had directed. It was clear that he was not going to provide any information from his
experience as to what had been considered reasonable actions in the past, so the conversation ended.
114