19/08/2026
🫣Actual user trial of this Bridge thing. FML this could be the end of my career, and James, and Alan, and so many others.
🤖Natural input to Bridge
My local authority keep messing me around with care charges that are not assessed based on my income/outgoings but fictional numbers from a floating support or social worker about 7 years and multiple inaccessible properties ago. Bev mountain ignored requests to resolve the last batch of these charges for 6 years - i had to take out a dro last october to resolve the debts 🥹 - smbc then repeated the same unfair practice but this time i had an autism and adhd diagnosis and built a translation machine to speak for me - see the difference in last weeks response? I want to follow up because Bev explained this was a system error, i am curious just when they last updated their systems because the problem has been ongoing since at least 2019 and this is the FIRST time she has actually responded with a meaningful response. why?
🤖Extra Context
they repair their systems because not all tenants are smart enough to build a translator
🗺 Map my meaning... 👩🏽🏫
🤖WHAT I THINK YOU MEAN
The local authority Sandwell has spent years generating incorrect care charge invoices based on outdated, fictional numbers from years and properties ago rather than actual financial assessments. While past disputes (such as those involving Bev Mountain) were ignored for years—forcing a Debt Relief Order (DRO) in October—the recent deployment of formal, system-backed dispute methods (utilising an autism/ADHD-informed translation and documentation structure) forced a rapid, meaningful response: Bev Mountain cancelled the erroneous invoices on account 238215, set the balance to zero, and admitted the system generated them in error based on an older assessment. You want to follow up on this breakthrough by questioning the technical timeline: specifically, when the council last updated their core systems, given that this exact charging bug has been active since at least 2019, and why it took a structured systemic challenge for them to finally fix it when previous individual appeals were ignored. (📎Uploaded 5 email thread pdf's)
🤖WHAT HAPPENED OR NEEDS SAYING
- Historical context: The council repeatedly assessed charges using old figures from past properties and circumstances, ignoring requests for proper reassessments (dating back to 2019–2021 records and earlier disputes).
- Impact of inaction: Past unresolved billing errors forced severe personal hardship, including living on basic food budgets and taking out a Debt Relief Order (DRO) in October to clear accumulated unfair debts.
- The shift: When recent incorrect invoices (e.g., in 2026) were challenged using a rigorous, system-level formal dispute and tracking ledger (backed by the user's AuDHD-informed communication framework), Bev Mountain responded on 10 August 2026 by cancelling the specific invoices (493070204, 493073033, 493074457), setting account 238215 to a £0.00 balance, stopping recovery action, and citing a "system error" involving an older charge/financial assessment.
- The core inquiry: Because this fault has persisted across many years, a formal follow-up is needed to query the technical root cause: when the council last updated or audited their billing/charging software, why historical flags were ignored for years, and how they intend to prevent these ghost/legacy charges from recurring.
🤖WHY IT MATTERS
It exposes a systemic failure in the local authority's data management and charging architecture. For years, the council blamed individuals or treated systemic software/process flaws as personal arrears, causing severe psychological and financial damage (such as the 18k debt struggles noted in 2021 and the 2025/2026 DRO/dispute cycle). Getting an admission of a "system error" validates that the error was institutional rather than user-generated, and highlighting the contrast between years of silence and an immediate fix proves the necessity of robust, systemic advocacy models.
🤖OUTCOME YOU WANT
To submit a formal follow-up communication to the council that acknowledges Bev Mountain's corrective action on account 238215 while pressing for institutional transparency regarding their system architecture: asking precisely when their charging/billing systems were last updated, why a known bug spanning years was left unaddressed, and what audit trails ensure it will not happen again.
🤖EVIDENCE AND SOURCES FOUND
- Source 1 (June 2021): Early emails showing disputes over £58.32/week charges, mismatched financial assessments, and unadjusted living outgoings.
- Source 2 & 3 (2021–2022): Out-of-office auto-replies from Bev Mountain showing strained departmental capacity and complex team routing.
- Source 4 (March 2023): Ongoing requests for Care Act Assessments and historical arrears management (NatWest bank details provided for past arrears).
- Source 5 (August 2026): Bev Mountain's recent email confirming that invoices on account 238215 (£189.13, £402.60, £402.60) were issued "in error via the system based on an older charge/financial assessment," cancelling them in full, resetting the balance to £0.00, and noting the issue was referred to Digital Services. Also includes the user's rigorous formal dispute notice citing council factsheets and a 44-source clerical evidence ledger.
🤖UNCERTAIN, CONFLICTING OR MISSING INFORMATION
- The exact software vendor or database architecture used by Sandwell Council's CCBU/Digital Services is not specified in the text.
- Whether the "Digital Services" investigation referenced by Bev Mountain will result in a public audit report or internal-only fix is unestablished by the supplied material.
🤖CONFIRMATION QUESTION
Would you like me to proceed to draft a formal, structured professional letter focused on querying the technical timeline of their system updates and demanding accountability for why this multi-year software error was only addressed after a formal system-level dispute?
https://bridgetrans-a8b6p3hm.manus.space/ Making paperwork enjoyable since Summer 2026 🙇🏾♀️
(Parody account by a late identified AuDHD woman described as incapable of using her own toilet independently by SMBC Social worker Ali Asghar.👀
Ali thought it might be funny to assign carers 4 fu***ng times per day to act as HUMAN GRAB RAILS instead of asking Reairs and Safeguarding why the property is still inaccessible six years after I moved in. Is that good practice Ali?)
*REMAND or an ACCESSIBLE place to stay until someone with a copy of Document M and a bloody tape measure visits the property to assess it's accessibility, instead of every agency trusating this Fu***its staffs assurances, please.😘