So I mentioned that this mob had used The Email Bureau to send some spam to one of my work email addresses.

Having failed to find a contact email address for them, I went onto Trustpilot to leave them a review:

Spam on the Menu?

They must be struggling, because why else would they decide to employ the services of those spammers, The Email Bureau Limited, to send me spam today?

Edit: I’ve emailed them a screenshot as they denied spamming me…

Edit: they’re now whining that the spam didn’t come from them, but they still fail to mention that it was their campaign, paid for my them, presumably? If not, are they suing The Email Bureau Limited? No, I didn’t think so…

They responded:

Update – Thanks for the screenshot Richard. I’m afraid this is not directly from us and you should pick this up with The Email Bureau to get them to take your name off their mailing list. I see you’ve provided a similar review re spam email to 3 other businesses and I wonder whether you are on a mailing list that you need to get delisted from. We haven’t emailed you directly and you are not on our email database so we cannot even remove/unsubscribe you.

Best wishes
Team Cookaway
———————————————————————–

Hi Richard,

Thanks for getting in touch.

We have no record of you in our order or email systems and have not activated anything with The Email Bureau.

We have sent you a request via Trustpilot to provide further information so we can investigate your claim properly. Please do get in touch via Trustpilot or directly through our website so we can look into this matter.

For any such issues, we always appreciate if you can contact us first and allow us to respond before leaving a negative review especially when we have no record of any prior communication with you.

Many thanks
Team Cookaway

At no time do “Team Cookaway” deny that this was their marketing campaign. The closest they get is the “we haven’t emailed you directly” bollocks. No, you paid someone else to, you bunch of fuckwits!

Well it looks like Damon Bennett’s little spamhaus has been busy recently, unlike his latest moribund company, The Consumer Leads Bureau, which is in the process of being stuck off.

Lots of shite from him and all – amazingly – from companies I will never use*…

Still…

“Relax
The data is GDPR compliant.”

Is it? Is it REALLY?

• Companies like Green Farm Coffee Co. (31/10/22)
• FlexiSolar (01/11/22)
• Braeburn Whisky (04/11/22)
• V4B Business Finance Ltd (07/11/22)
• Bite Promotions (08/11/22)
• The Cookaway (09/11/22)
• Skills for Business Training (10/11/22) (whose website terms and privacy policy are bother boilerplate text with gaps and insertion points…)

There’s a lot of hoo-har over that utter shitshow that is Brexit and some of it is due to the many levels of bureaucracy forced upon British exporters now we’re no longer in the EU.  This, of course, despite the promises by the Brexshitters that leaving would get rid of all that red tape and make us more prosperous.

Well that same degree of fuckwitted belligerence applies to HMRC.  A few years back, they decided that it would be a good idea to roll out a new policy called “Making Tax Digital”:

“Making Tax Digital is a key part of the government’s plans to make it easier for individuals and businesses to get their tax right and keep on top of their affairs.”

Utter bollocks!

Originally, there was a threshold for turnover before you’d be forced to submit VAT returns in the way the HMRC demanded, but that threshold was shelved, so now, if you’re VAT-registered than you have to submit them their way.  The roll-out was delayed by COVID-19 – who knows why – but it’s up and running now.

I was self-employed for many years and was VAT-registered as 95% of the work I was doing was B2B (business to business).  For the last 14 years I’ve been employed but still do a minimal amount of work freelance, so I charge VAT and claim it back on the expenses I incur.

Copies of all invoices in and out are stored in folders on my computer (and backed up) and the calculations for my VAT returns (and indeed Self-Assessment) are entered manually on a spreadsheet.  I used to then enter the numbers on the VAT return online and voila! Straight after the end of the VAT period, in they went and I either paid out the VAT or reclaimed it.

But not any more.  I’m not allowed to do this myself. I have to keep records (like I already do) with an ‘audit trail’ (like I already do) but now I have to link my numbers through to a new spreadsheet or solution offered by one of the 196 providers of this so-called “bridging software”. By “offered” I mean “sold” either on a one-off basis or more often on an ongoing basis, costing hundreds of pounds a year … off my profit. That’s if the software works on your system: PWC’s, for instance, only works on a Windows computer and not a Mac, and costs £144 a year.  At least PWC say how much it is; some of their competitors don’t.

I’m away for a few weeks overseas every few weeks (in the EU and back four of five times a year) and as I’m writing this, I’m ready to submit a VAT return but cannot because the HMRC will only send my new username and password to me by post and I need to enter that in the bridging software so that my figures from my spreadsheet go via another spreadsheet to HMRC’s VAT portal.

You know, the one I used to copy the numbers into before and for zero extra cost…

This charming bunch of cunts have been spamming me for at least the last 15 years as a search on this site will show.

So today’s emails from them have amused me:

“Emailmovers Limited processes your information for direct marketing purposes, in the legitimate interest of itself and its clients…”

Nothing about my “legitimate interest” in not being added to their spammer database then.

You know it’ll be a great spam email when the subject line says “This isn’t spam! Amend your record for FREE NOW!!” (loving the double exclamation marks).

Oh yes, Acquirz Limited with its two directors Christopher Skinner and Russell Wilmot – who run a number of similar companies – sent me a couple of blatant spam messages in which they try to legitimise what they do … and fail miserably.

“You are receiving this email as we believe it may be relevant to you in your professional role and we believe your business will benefit.

“Your business and personal contact data has been collected from publicly available records such as websites and government records and combined with data from third-party data providers and is being processed on the basis of Acquirz’s legitimate interests and those of our data partners and customers.

“These interests include our direct marketing and sharing your data with our data partners and selling it to our customers for their business marketing campaigns. You can read more about these interests and how you can exercise your rights in our Privacy Notice.

“If you would like to opt out, please unsubscribe using the link below.
Click here to unsubscribe

“Kind regards
Acquirz Ltd”

So in other words they’ve either harvested the email addresses or bought a spam list from another spammer.

On their website they say “The opportunity and potential for Acquirz is awesome” whilst their last published accounts indicate that that’s clearly all unrealised!

One of the regular spammers I’m seeing these days is an outfit is someone calling themselves Properties4less.

Every day there seem to be new ones with desperate pleas to invest in some shithole, usually up North.  The latest is Bristol though.

Typically for a spammer, their website is pretty blank as all the crap is in various pages with tracking details enabled.

Also typically, they lie:

“You have received this email because you have subscribed to Properties4less”

No, I really didn’t…

So I’ve been receiving regular emails from Aztec Events for ages now and most recently it’s their All About Dogs Show.

This is of absolutely no interest to me as a) I hate show ground events and b) I don’t have a dog. But that still doesn’t stop their interminable spam from flooding in.

These spammers have been sending me spam for some time now about property developments and investment opportunities and have tried their hardest to hide their tracks using register and dump domain names and websites with hidden backends.

I won’t say how I found who was behind the spam emails but it’s info@es1.co.uk (which again is a recent-ish registration).

They claim:

“ES1 is an Estate Agency specialising in the sale of residential units created by the experienced property developer Empire Property Concepts. Established in 2003, Empire is committed to producing highly sought-after accommodation in prime locations. It creates prestigious conversion schemes that breathe life into iconic buildings.”

More shite from marketing@uk1-multiwebmarketing.co.uk or should that be info@multiwebmarketing.co.uk perhaps?

Maybe Paul Smith isn’t sure himself?

So we all know that the UK’s Transport Secretary Grant Shapps is out of his depth in a bird bath. He did, after all, go on holiday knowing that his department were about to bring in quarantine last July, and that he’d have to fly back early. What a tosser!

And his incompetence and lack of joined-up thinking continue unabated.

India have only just been added to the Red List of countries where you need to isolate in a designated hotel at £1,750 a time because the Tories were trying to negotiate a trade deal. The Indian delegation then came to the UK and reported a number had come down with COVID-19.

At the same time, UK nationals coming back from India were simply taking a 10 day holiday in Istanbul at a fraction of the quarantine cost and then flying in, so adding Turkey to the red list was inevitable.

Last week, a UK representative told the Spanish that the much-heralded Green List would be driven by the science and the Greek and Spanish islands would be reviewed and treated separately. Then yesterday Shapps revealed a truly bizarre list and noted that Spain (on the amber list) included the Balearics and the Canaries, despite the FCDO website still saying this:

“The FCDO advises against all but essential travel to Spain, including the Balearic Islands but excluding the Canary Islands, based on the current assessment of COVID-19 risks.”

Now, the Canaries – and Fuerteventura specifically – have really low infection rates at the moment, yet to return to London with its much, much higher rates will require quarantine.

That Green List?

• Portugal
• Israel
• Singapore
• Australia
• New Zealand
• Brunei
• Iceland
• Gibraltar
• Falkland Islands
• Faroe Islands
• South Georgia and the Sandwich Islands
• St Helena, Tristan de Cunha and Ascension Island

So most of those do not allow travel from the UK in the first place. Ah.

Portugal and Gibraltar? A pretty open border with Spain, isn’t there?

South Georgia and the Sandwich Islands? You can only travel there by sea and there is no visitor accommodation.

The Falkland Islands? You can only fly there … via Chile (Red List) with commercial airlines or with the MoD via a refuelling stop in Cape Verde (Red List).

You couldn’t make this stuff up!

An email today from marketing@webmailserver.co.uk and/or simong@megabyte-data.email and/or sales@megabyte-data.co.uk offering to sell me spam lists.

Pity they’re so bad they couldn’t even spell their email disclaimer correctly:

“The informatnion contained in this email is intended only for the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. It may contain privileged and confidential information and if you are not an intended recipient you must not copy, distribute or take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this email in error, please notify us immediately by telephone. Please also destroy and delete the message from your computer.

Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the sender only and do not necessarily represent the views of Megabyte Data Ltd.

Company Number: 12517280

ICO Data Protection: ZA721960″

Yes, they’re at it too. Debbie Docherty‘s happy smiling face pretty much every day on yet another spam email.

It looks like Andrew Charlton has bought himself a spammer’s mailing list and is happily churning out spams about events no-one cares about.

And then of course he adds the usual lies at the bottom of each email to pretend it’s legitimate:

“You received this email because you subscribed to our list and have opted in to receive news, offers and deals from our partners.”

No, I really didn’t! Never heard of you before, Hashtag Business Services Limited. Still, given he’s already had one company dissolved (Exposure Business Events Limited) and almost had another one go – only just saved by the bell, according to Companies House – you can maybe understand the desperation.

After yet another Spam from our old friends Emailmovers – who have a history of playing fast and loose with the law when it comes to Spam (see for instance this post and this article) – I have today decided that it is time to report them to the ICO to see if they’ll slap these spammers with a nice, big, juicy fine.

We’ll see.

Whilst checking my Spam folder earlier, I found one sent direct to one of my email addresses by our old friends Emailmovers who have a history of playing fast and loose with the law when it comes to Spam (see for instance this post and this article).

“See how Emailmovers can help you with your marketing post GDPR”

Oh really?

And worse still, Emailmovers’ website currently says:

“Working closely with the DMA and ICO we are making sure all our data is GDPR ready for May 2018”

Well, clearly it’s not, but there’s no surprise there, is there?

Way back in the mists of time, I wrote a bit about how Southwark Council had decided to make traffic congestion worse on Jamaica Road, SE London by stopping local drivers from using a ‘rat-run’.  Their consultation paper – sent to a tiny minority of extremely localised people – asked a series of heavily biased questions without a “none of the above” option.

Well these fuckwits are at it again: solving a problem that doesn’t actually exist and thereby creating a new one.

They’ve decided that people daring to park on the Western part of Rotherhithe Street – which is a no through road and not exactly busy – are going to be penalised, including all the residents who currently park there.  Their proposals , published at http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200140/parking_projects/4039/rotherhithe_parking_zone_study – show only very limited permit parking (at £125 each…) for residents with the rest of the area subject to double yellow lines.

Now there really isn’t an issue with parking on that section of Rotherhithe Street: I walk along it every time I walk to work and there’s plenty of space for parking and no trouble with the road being blocked from the (non-existent) through-traffic by these pesky parkers.

So what would happen when Southwark gets its way? Well quite simply all those vehicles will need to park somewhere else nearby and the nearest parking would be the Eastern side of Rotherhithe Street where there are (currently) very few parking restrictions and no resident-only parking spaces whilst still being a busy through road on the C10 bus route. And when all those vehicles park on ‘our’ street, where will we be able to park? Where will all those coaches that park overnight whilst fetching and carrying kids staying at the local YHA now be able to park? After all, Southwark allowed a new housing development to go up where the coaches used to park. Oh and another new development is going up opposite our house with Southwark’s blessing despite all bar one comment (duplicated 40+ times) objecting to it with no parking spaces included within the development because parking’s not a problem!

Now have a look at the questionnaire. See how it asks what times you’d like the restrictions to apply. There isn’t a “Never” option, is there? Ask the right question…

Bollocks to this!

More spam received this morning. This time from Textlocal – al@txtlocal.com – advertising Travis Perkins’ trade accounts:

Opening a Travis Perkins account is quick and easy, simply visit https://tx.vc/{tracking URL removed} and start trading today! Optout: Text TPSTOP to 60777

They’ve suggested via Twitter that I direct message them my number so they can opt me out of such texts, spam that I never opted in to receive in the first place.

And wasn’t the first rule of spam never to confirm that the e-mail address or telephone number was a live one?

So once upon a time, a friend who was dying from Motor Neurone Disease wrote a blog about living with the disease. This was a full and frank discussion of the issues, his treatments and his observations. It’s a moving story.

Anyway, one entry mentions – briefly – a food supplement called “Ambrotose”:

“One of the doctor members very kindly gave me some powder which he says has helped his wife enormously. She has had MS for the last seven years. He also has a niece with a muscle wastage complaint who is also taken the same powder. Its trade name is Ambrotose and it is described on the jar as an immune support formula. It is a Food Supplement containing Plant Polysaccharides.

The ingredients are listed as: arabingelactan; aloe vera inner leaf gel powder; rice starch; gum ghatti; tagacanth; vegetarian glucosamine hydrochloride; vegetarian algie extract powder. Whether it will do any good or not remains to be seen but my friend is convinced it will slow things down. What it costs I have no idea but I’m pretty sure there’s no way I will get it on the NHS. I will try it for a month or so and then decide whether to continue with it….”

That’s all it says and is the only blog entry on the subject. The entry is now over 6 years old. Mark has since passed away.

Imagine my surprise when I recently received a “Cease and Desist” e-mail from a company I’d never heard of called Mannatech:

7/17/2015

TO: PRIVATE REGISTRANT

RE: Impermissible Use of Health Claims Attributed to Mannatech Products
http://www.dmarkcato.com/tag/ambrotose/

Dear : PRIVATE REGISTRANT

Mannatech, Incorporated (“Mannatech”) routinely reviews the internet to insure our products are being properly represented to the public. Health claims which go beyond the specific claims approved for Mannatech products and/or claims which state suggest or imply Mannatech products cure, treat, mitigate or prevent disease are against Mannatech policies.

Your website (identified above) contains statements which are contrary to Mannatech”s policies. You are hereby requested to immediately remove from your website any statement which (i) states, suggests or implies Mannatech nutritional products prevent, treat or cure disease, (ii) states, suggests or implies Mannatech nutritional products are a substitute for a doctor”s standard of care, and/or (iii) otherwise violates Mannatech”s Associate Policies & Procedures.

The removal of this type of impermissible information from the internet is of great importance to protect Mannatech”s right to conduct business. We request that you contact the undersigned at jdiaz@mannatech.com within five (5) business days from the receipt of this letter to (i) confirm the offending statements/representations have been removed from the website and (ii) confirm you will refrain from making such representations in connection with Mannatech nutritional products in the future (iv) address any concerns or questions relating to the issue raised herein.

Please keep in mind that it is your responsibility to ensure that any websites, blogs, social/networking mediums, other electronic media, etc. created by you or by a third party on your behalf used in connection with your Mannatech Independent Associate business complies with Mannatech Associate policies.

We thank you in advance for your immediate attention and cooperation, and again stress the importance of complying with our request and contacting the undersigned as requested herein.

Respectfully,

The Mannatech Legal, Ethics and Compliance Department

Note: Nothing contained in this letter shall be construed as a waiver of any rights Mannatech, Incorporated has at law or in equity, all of which are expressly reserved.

This initially annoyed me and then it amused me: the blog entry apparently is “against Mannatech policies”. Well good for them! It also “violates Mannatech”s [sic] Associates Policies & Procedures”. Really? Wow! If only I knew what those were, eh? And what “Mannatech Independent Associate business” are they talking about?

So I naturally ignored this fuckwit’s e-mail.

7/23/2015

To: PRIVATE REGISTRANT

RE: Impermissible Use of Health Claims Attributed to Mannatech Products
http://www.dmarkcato.com/tag/ambrotose/

Dear PRIVATE REGISTRANT:

A few days ago Mannatech, Incorporated (“Mannatech”) contacted you requesting your immediate assistance in removing statements from your website (identified above) which violate Mannatech Associate policies in connection with claims about our nutritional products. Our records do not reflect you”ve made the requested changes to your website or contacted the undersigned regarding this matter – this automated letter was generated accordingly.

Mannatech requests you immediately remove from your website any statement which (i) states, suggests or implies Mannatech nutritional products prevent, treat or cure disease, (ii) states, suggests or implies Mannatech nutritional products are a substitute for a doctor”s standard of care, and/or (iii) otherwise violates Mannatech”s Associate Policies & Procedures.

We further request that you contact the undersigned at Jdiaz@mannatech.com within five (5) business days from the receipt of this letter to (i) confirm the offending statements/representations have been removed from the website and (ii) acknowledge that you will refrain from making such representations in connection with Mannatech nutritional products in the future.

It is our hope that you now fully appreciate our concerns and will take prompt action to avoid escalating the matter further. The removal of this type of impermissible information from the internet is of great importance to protect Mannatech”s right to conduct business.

If you have already complied with the original letter from Mannatech concerning this matter, please disregard this automated letter. You will be contacted regarding the next steps in the compliance process in the near future.

Respectfully,

The Mannatech Legal, Ethics and Compliance Department

Note: Nothing contained in this letter shall be construed as a waiver of any rights Mannatech, Incorporated has at law or in equity, all of which are expressly reserved.

No. I don’t fully appreciate their concerns; I couldn’t give a toss at this point about them or their products. So I continued to treat it with the apathy it deserved.

This upset them…

7/30/2015

To: PRIVATE REGISTRANT

RE: Impermissible Use of Health Claims Attributed to Mannatech Products
http://www.dmarkcato.com/tag/ambrotose/

Dear PRIVATE REGISTRANT:

Mannatech, Incorporated (“Mannatech”) has attempted to contact you on two separate occasions seeking your immediate assistance in removing statements from your website (identified above) which violate Mannatech Associate policies in connection with claims about our nutritional products. Our records do not reflect you”ve made the requested changes to your website or contacted the undersigned regarding this matter.

Mannatech demands you immediately remove from your website any statement which (i) states, suggests or implies Mannatech nutritional products prevent, treat or cure disease, (ii) states, suggests or implies Mannatech nutritional products are a substitute for a doctor”s standard of care, and/or (iii) otherwise violates Mannatech”s Associate Policies & Procedures.

The removal of this type of impermissible information from the internet is of great importance to protect Mannatech”s right to conduct business. Mannatech is prepared to take legal action to secure your immediate compliance with this demand, including litigation seeking injunctive relief, damages and attorney”s fees as allowed under Texas law.

Due to the serious nature of this issue, failure to contact the undersigned at Jdiaz@mannatech.com within three (3) business days from the receipt of this letter will result in Mannatech taking additional action to secure your compliance.

Respectfully,

The Mannatech Legal, Ethics and Compliance Department

Note: Nothing contained in this letter shall be construed as a waiver of any rights Mannatech, Incorporated has at law or in equity, all of which are expressly reserved.

Ooh! So they’re now demanding I remove any statement about their products from the website. I’m quaking and Mark is no doubt turning in his grave at the thought…

So I thought I’d actually have a look at who Mannatech are and what this Ambrotose stuff is. Go and have a look and you’ll see that – despite all the jargon and faux scientific phrases being bandied about – it’s just a dietary supplement; a placebo if you like and an expensive one at that.  Indeed, their whole website is carefully worded so as not to actually make any specific claims about any of their products at all. It’s a work of genius! And then if you Google them further, you’ll see references to a lawsuit and issues with them being accused of being no more than a multi-level marketing outfit. It makes interesting reading (unlike their website). Their MLM status no doubt explains all that bollocks about their associate policies too. I can see why they’re nervous too: look at what the Texas Attorney General had to say:

“…Documents filed in Travis County district court reveal Mannatech’s scheme to exploit families, including those challenged by cancer, Down’s syndrome, cystic fibrosis and other serious illnesses. According to investigators, exaggerated claims about the therapeutic benefits of Mannatech’s dietary supplements and nutritional products were unlawfully used to increase sales. The attorney general’s enforcement action asserts that Mannatech’s deceptive practices pose a health risk to seriously-ill consumers who may forgo traditional medical attention because of the company’s false claims.

Media links

Plaintiff’s Original Petition

Texans will not tolerate illegal marketing schemes that prey upon the sick and unsuspecting, Attorney General Abbott said. Aided by an army of multi-level sellers and their fictitious claims about its products, Mannatech has aggressively marketed supplements to countless unwitting purchasers. With today’s enforcement action, the Office of the Attorney General seeks to shut down an elaborate scheme to defraud innocent consumers across the nation…”

Ouch!

Almost as ‘ouchy’ as their paying out $6M to make the case go away.

Let’s see what happens next with this bunch…

On 20th July 2014, a blanket speed limit of 20mph was introduced in the City of London:

20mph City of London Limit

Why did they decide to do that? It was apparently part of their “Road Danger Reduction Plan“. And yet, reading that, it’s not speed that’s the issue with the highest at-risk groups of cyclists, pedestrians and motorcyclists.

Cyclists:

• “… 84% of casualties are involved in collisions at intersections or junctions. This is in line with the Greater London average.
• Collisions are more likely to occur in the middle of junctions rather than on their approaches.
• Failure to see a cyclist appears to be a significant causal factor.
• The main contributory factors identified in cyclist casualties are “turning right”, “changing lanes”, “opening vehicle doors” and “undertaking of large vehicles turning left across cyclists path”. The last factor being the most significant in KSI casualties.”

Uh-huh. So speed isn’t really at issue at all here and indeed it looks like the main issue is cyclists with a deathwish undertaking – no pun intended – large vehicles.

Motorcyclists and Scooterists:

“…As 72 per cent of motorcyclists were injured due to the actions of other road users, a significant reduction in motorcyclist casualties will only be achieved by addressing the behaviour of other road users, particularly car, taxi, and goods vehicle drivers and by increasing motorcyclists’ awareness of other road users. The most common causes of a motorcyclist being injured are pedestrian lack of attention, motor vehicles turning right across their path, and vehicles U turning.”

I see. So the trouble here is pedestrians and vehicles doing right and U turns, neither of which are speed-related.

Pedestrians:

“Goods vehicles, coaches and buses are disproportionately involved in collisions….

“Pedestrian inattention” has been identified as the main contributory factor for pedestrian casualties.”

Interestingly, it also notes that there are clusters of casualties around the stations where “the City experiences considerable over-crowding of footways, particularly at peak times, with pedestrians stepping onto the carriageway.” So it appears that people stepping off the overcrowded pavements into the path of slower-moving vehicles is the risk here, again rather than speeding. Perhaps investment/improvement into the pedestrian walkways is the key here?

According to the London Evening Standard:

Michael Welbank, speaking on behalf of City of London council, said: “For the City of London to continue its success as an international business hub it is critical that its streets should be safe for all who use them be they commuters, pedestrians, cyclists, drivers, motorcyclists, shoppers or cultural wanderers and dreamers.”

So maybe infrastructure investment might be a better idea, along with enforcement of other legislation and education of pedestrians and cyclists? Or why not simply reintroduce the Locomotive Act 1875, although this would mean fewer speeding fines and less “Being Seen To Be Doing Something”:

“Red Flag” Act

Even typing that title reminded me that with such epic organisations, the degree of fuckwittery would be of epic proportions.

And so it is with Southwark Council’s “Council Tax Single Person Discount Review” letter which threatens to withdraw the discount if you don’t reply within 14 days.

“We are using an external agency to assist us, which will include checking data from other sources and reviewing details of credit applications made at your address.”

OK, so it’s more jobs for the boys and more cost to the council tax payers.

But you can’t fill in a form online to declare that yes, it is still just you. Likewise a telephone number. No, you have to fill in the form and post it back.

Capita have chosen not to include a reply envelope to do that. Not even one that needs a stamp. Not even a blank one. The reason?

“The Council hasn’t paid us to send out envelopes or stamps.”

So I asked what would happen if I sent them their form in an envelope without a stamp?

“Oh it won’t even be delivered to us and your reduction will go.”

That line was delivered in a really sneery voice too by the ‘helpful’ Customer Service agent on the telephone when I rang them.

So yes, more of the usual bollocks delivered by an overpriced external agency to an unfit for purpose Council. No surprises there, then.