Mr Parnell’s Case
raised with Andrew Stunell, Junior DCLG Minister and his local MP.
15/3/11
1. Can you let me know
your basic understanding of his case? (see back page for basic summary).
2. Do you
accept he is a genuine and honest council taxpayer and citizen of this Borough
in need of assistance to sort out his problems, which Mr Stunell and the
taxpayer-funded workers in his constituency office are paid to help him sort
out?
3. Are you
aware of how much his case has cost the taxpayer and how much valuable police
time it has wasted? (please see Stunell leaflet about how important it is to
stop the wasting of police time).
4. Are you
aware that Mr Parnell adopted two daughters, who had a terrible time with their
birth parents and were being given excellent counselling by an organisation
called After Adoption, which Stockport Council stopped funding?
5. Will you
take action to try to obtain counselling for his daughters adopted from
Stockport Council, and no doubt further traumatized by the Council repeatedly
imprisoning him in a tough Manchester prison?
6. Do you
accept that had his daughters remained in council care it would have cost the
council taxpayer a lot of money and he has therefore had a substantial
beneficial effect on the financial state of the Borough?
7. Are you
aware the Council was given circa £600,000 by the Government for counselling in
cases just such as his, which the Council spent on something else?
8. What is
your understanding of his council tax problems?
9. Why did
his council tax arrears originally arise when he was on full benefit?
10. Why are
there so many anomalies in his/his wife’s council tax record (see below)?:-
Council Tax Account
details – Mrs K Parnell
1993
Total property charge
£574.32
Total payments – full
amount
Paid by direct debit –
all clear and correct
Girls placed April 93
until 16/1/95 – during this time council tax was paid by Mr. Parnell but
shouldn’t have been. He was not aware it wasn’t due.
He was on means tested
benefit – he owed nothing. He did not claim child
allowance, as no-one told
them they could.
1994
Total property charge
£613.99
Total payments –
Paid by direct debit –
all clear and correct
Last payment made 16/1/95
1995
Total payment by direct
debit until 17/7/95, when they went to
court to get the children freed for adoption, which happened October 1995.
August 1995 – told to
make payment of £3.86, which he paid – why?
Feb 1996 – told to
clear account to pay £108.00 – paid by cheque – why?
Due total benefits
3/8/95 told he had £404.18 council tax benefit
2/1/96 – period 1/4/95 – 31/3/96 – told he owed £156.44 – why?
2/1/96 – period 1/4/95 – 31/3/96 – told he owed £ 13.04 – why?
12/2/96 – period 1/4/95 – 31/3/96 told he was + £56.66 – why?
12/2/96 – period 1/4/95 – 31/3/96 told he was + £8.78 – why?
28/2/96 – period 1/4/95 – 31/3/96 told he owed £0.01 – why?
Girls placed April 93
until 16/1/95 – during this time council tax was paid by Mr.
Parnell but shouldn’t have been. He was not aware it wasn’t due.
He was on means tested
benefit – he owed nothing. He did not claim child allowance, as no-one told
them they could.
In 1998 Mr. & Mrs.
Parnell asked for a social worker and council tax help and were put on council
tax benefit until 2002. Their circumstances have not changed since 2002.
Accounting year 2000
their council tax liability was £846.91p on their property. The balance brought
forward was £0. During 2000 there were no payments made because they were on
full benefit.
2003 liability
£1022.51p. They now owe £1679.27. Why?
The Council then
informed them there had been mistakes – clerical errors and the Council
demanded £5000 be paid back in one go. At the end of December 2003 it was
agreed they should be receiving full benefit.
11. When he was taken to
court in 2009 (and won) over his alleged council tax arrears, why were there
transfers on his council tax account around the time of the court case?
12. When he
was taken to court in 2009 (and won) over his alleged council tax arrears, why
was he fined £66 court costs and will this be refunded?
13. Do you
agree that council officers should respond within 10 working days and where
this does not happen, in order to protect valuable police resources and
taxpayers’ money, are you prepared to intervene?
14. Why was Mr
Parnell arrested for trying to attend his own benefits tribunal, when the judge
at his expensive Crown Court trial told him he must claim benefits?
15. Following
Judge Lever’s comments at his very expensive trial, in what way did the Council
try to help him in order not to further waste v
aluable police, court, CPS and
prison resources?
16. Why was Mr
Parnell’s benefit tribunal cancelled on 14/3/11 with no notice and why were the
police called when he tried to attend that benefits tribunal on 14/3/11, which
he hadn’t been informed had been cancelled?
17. Why is Mr
Parnell not allowed to ask such simple council meeting questions as:- “Are
council taxpayers in Stockport allowed the right to
peaceful protest?” He was defamed by Mayor Lees in front of hundreds of
attendees at the full Council meeting recently. Is it acceptable to Mr.
Stunell, who maintains he believes in human rights, that such treatment is
meted out to an honest council taxpayer and what steps will Mr. Stunell take to
remedy this deplorable situation of loss of freedom of speech?
I look forward to
hearing Mr. Stunell’s comments and to finding out what action he intends to
take in this matter. I shall post up his reply or lack of it widely on Internet
sites.
Yours
Sheila Oliver
Local Freedom of
Information, Human Rights and Environmental Campaigner
Background history
Prior to the girls
being placed with Mr. & Mrs. Parnell, an assessment was done on their
income. The Council agreed they had a low income – less than £10,000 take home
pay. Mrs. Parnell gave up her job to look after the girls. It was recommended
by placement officers that Mr. Parnell didn’t do the overtime he had been doing
in order to be able to spend quality time with the girls. Mr. Parnell’s wage
was so low he should have been eligible for council tax benefit. At the
beginning the couple didn’t receive child benefit, which is automatically set
in process for non-adopted children when they are born and the birth is
registered. For adopted children the process is different, and not something
people can claim without advice. He was not advised to do this by Stockport
Council when he adopted his daughters.
The girls were put into
care in 1991 in Wigan. In April 1993 they
were placed with Stockport under
Section 31 Local Authority Care Act. They were adopted in May 1996. Within 6
months of being taken into care there was a Permanence Order – In
November 1995
Mr. & Mrs. Parnell gained a freeing order for the girls to be adopted.
The Council used to
fund After Adoption, which they no longer do. This organization provided
excellent counselling for the girls after adoption at the respective ages of 9
– 11 and 10 – 12. For such troubled children, serious professional help is
needed.
The placing borough and
receiving borough work together to do what is in the interests of the
children….
