Council tax enforcement in magistrates’ courts

[Amethyst]

Council tax enforcement in magistrates’ courts - Council tax enforcement in magistrates courts - Ministry of Justice

22 October 2009
Bridget Prentice has made a statement concerning council tax enforcement in magistrates’ courts.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Bridget Prentice):
Local authorities use the magistrates’ courts to enforce non-payment of council tax. This process begins with an application (called a 'complaint') for the court to issue a summons informing the individual that the local authority is seeking unpaid council tax and asking the individual to attend court if they wish to challenge the court making a liability order for that amount. The issue of a summons for non-payment of council tax or non-domestic rates must be authorised by a Justice of the Peace or Legal Adviser with delegated powers from a Justices’ Clerk. Fees are chargeable and the decision of the court at the hearing must be recorded in a court register.
Investigations by Her Majesty’s Courts Service (HMCS) staff have identified examples of a small number of magistrates’ courts failing to follow the correct procedures. In particular HMCS has identified examples of fees not being charged to local authorities for issuing proceedings and some examples of a failure at Salford magistrates’ court to enter the results of applications for liability orders on the court register. More seriously two magistrates’ courts, Rochdale and Salford permitted the local authorities to issue summonses requiring attendance at court without the authorisation of the court.
This was a clear procedural failing and was immediately stopped when it came to light. Individuals and the magistrates concerned in subsequently hearing cases would not have been aware of this irregularity.
In all such cases individuals would have had ample opportunity to attend court if they wished to challenge the liability to have the non-payment enforced against them. However, they would not have been aware that the summons had not been properly issued. Had the summonses been correctly issued, there is no reason to think the consequences would have been any different in practice. Individuals should pay their council tax and this House would expect non-payment to be properly enforced.
Given the paucity of information available it is not practicable to identify the individuals concerned. The issues identified in Rochdale and Salford have been fully investigated and I am satisfied that correct procedures are now in place. A national check was carried out that revealed no similar practices and all courts have been reminded of the importance of following the correct procedures.

[Amethyst]

Re: Council tax enforcement in magistrates’ courts

Very bizarrely I sent a FOI to the MOJ on the 17th of this month about this very subject following a hansard comment Ms Prentice made back in Feb.

They have replied that they are considering the 'public interest test'

Dear Sirs

In Hansard in 25th Feb 2009 Bridget Prentice stated 'The Ministry of Justice is working with the Department of Communities and Local Government to look at new ways to collect and enforce council tax,'.

I would like to request copies of communications regarding this subject between the Ministry of Justice and Department of Communities and Local Government.

I only require information which is easily searchable and retreiveable on your computer system.

Yours sincerely

[charitynjw]

Re: Council tax enforcement in magistrates’ courts

17th October?

Blimey - Any reply yet?

[Amethyst]

Re: Council tax enforcement in magistrates’ courts

Ohhh Yes !

Thank you for your email of 17 October 2009, in which you asked for ‘copies of the communications between the Ministry of Justice and Department of Communities and Local Government regarding new ways to collect and enforce council tax’.

I wrote to you on 20 November explaining that we held some information which falls within the scope of your request, but that this information may be exempt under Section 42 (Legal professional privilege) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) and as this is a qualified exemption the department needed further time to consider the public interest.

I said that I hoped to let you have a response by 20 December 2009, but if I was unable to respond by that date I would write again explaining when I would be able to respond in full to your request.

I am able to tell you that the department does need a further period of time to complete its consideration of the public interest before deciding whether to disclose the information. Accordingly, as allowed under section 10(3) of the FOIA, I have extended the deadline for response to your request to 21 January 2010. However, if I am able to reply to you before that date I will do so.

If nothing on 21st Jan then I will ask for an internal review.

[charitynjw]

Re: Council tax enforcement in magistrates’ courts

How about a review of why a rubber-stamp process (estimated cost to council - £3) often ends up costing the 'victim' in excess of £100 (victim - that's how you refer to someone who's been mugged, isn't it?)

These Liability Orders are nothing but a stealth tax, & again it is the 'can't pays' who suffer worst - if someone can't pay the outstanding debt, how can imposing a huge fine help?. Plus a grand for failure to fill the Financial Circumstance form. Plus a criminal record for not filling it in properly.

[charitynjw]

Re: Council tax enforcement in magistrates’ courts

Apologies for the rant, but the justification for this charge seems to be "it's reasonable for the work involved".

(Is it just me, or does that sound alarmingly familiar.....................)

[charitynjw]

Re: Council tax enforcement in magistrates’ courts

There comes a time when one has to leave the safe haven of The Shires & venture abroad to dark forbidden territory:-

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...how-can-i.html

[ed.]

Re: Council tax enforcement in magistrates’ courts

I'm in on the 25th of this month if I can be bothered.

Short version.

Payment has been arranged and kept to.

Previous 'notices' are void because they have cocked up benefits and after the first reminder the 'liability' was reduced as they partly correctly the owed benefit.

Appeal is still on going.

Summons is incorrectly dated. (in terms of when the tax was due)

We received the second reminder dated 6 days after the summons.

Idiot at Council can't tell us whether we are being taken to Mages for last years 'supposed' outstanding balance or because the money we have paid so far has zeroed last years 'supposed' outstanding balance meaning we haven't yet paid this years balance.

All notices so far have wildly different sums.

Again for repetition purposes - despite a payment agreement being in place that was arranged to make life simple because for some reason our Council believes our WFTC effectively doubled in 2008 due to changes in income and family make up that we never informed them of.

Erm it didn't.

All I need to decide is whether I can be bothered to turn up in front of the Wig knowing I'll lose anyway, or just chase it through the Ombudsman. I know there's a thread on here from Cet I think who wanted to take one case they we're involved with further but the OP wanted to wash their hands of it.

I'm happy to be the guinea pig again if you are near Nuneaton lol

[charitynjw]

Re: Council tax enforcement in magistrates’ courts

Cetelco

Admin

Join Date: May 2007
Location:
Posts: 2,088
Reputation:
Blog Entries: 0

Thanks: 167
Thanked 881 Times in 546 Posts




Re: Council Tax Court Costs
I remember looking at this some time ago, when I was helping someone with council tax issues. I seem to recall the council claiming that they had internal costs, on top of the fee the Magistrates' Court charged them.

This in itself may not be unreasonable, but when I served them with an FOI request asking how many Liability Orders they issued, it transpired that they made over £800,000 "gross profit" from the difference between what they charged the debtor and what it cost the council.

The problem seems to be one of shame. There is a stigma attached to suffering an inability to pay bills, in particular council tax and too few people are prepared to act. I know that once the issue I was dealing with was resolved, the individual concerned wanted no further action taken and I was powerless to act alone.

[Amethyst]

Re: Council tax enforcement in magistrates’ courts

Canterbury City Council

Although it is impossible to provide the level of detail you are looking for in terms of precise breakdowns, we include all costs we incur for dealing with the administration of summonses and Council Tax collection. These include Council Tax staff, Customer Services staff, stationery, postage costs, computer systems etc. Each year we review the level of costs charged to satisfy ourselves that they are not excessive. This is achieved by looking at the level of costs charged by other Kent Council and other Councils nationally. Although the most recent exercise of this type revealed that our costs were some 20% lower than what others were charging we still decided to `freeze' the costs for 2008/09 as we are currently satisfied that it reflect what it costs to deal with recovery.

My officers deal with a wide variety of work and dealing with summonses is just one of them. It would be impractical and hugely bureaucratic to ask them to keep detailed timesheets so we can pinpoint exactly where all their resources - and therefore cost - is being utilised. Indeed, if we decided to do this then the overall administrative burden would increase which would increase the overall financial burden - leading to an increase in summons costs, which would be self-defeating.

The reasonableness “test” is ultimately with the court as they have the power to approve or refuse to allow our costs in these cases. If they thought we were charging far more that what it actually costs then they would undoubtedly refuse our proposed charge. We have no such problems and they have approved our costs.

The budget that `benefits' from the payment of costs is the Council Tax budget. We have to collect the monies and that is offset against the total budget we are given for each financial year. We don't actually benefit, as such, from the costs we collect because they go towards the costs we incur collecting the Council Tax.

I am sorry that I cannot give you the level of detail you are asking for but I hope that this response reassures you that the costs passed onto customers are being dealt with in a fair and reasonable way.

All Magistrates that sit on Council Tax liability order hearings are `genuine' Magistrates, as approved by the court service.

[Amethyst]

Re: Council tax enforcement in magistrates’ courts

Also hit a wall on this one, I originally asked COmmunities and they passed me on to Cipfa

Sirs,

Under the Freedom of Information Act;
I should also like figures from 2005 to present detailing the number of cases from all authorities in England which non payment has resulted in a liability order.
I should also like figures from 2005 to present detailing the number of cases from all authorities in England which non payment has resulted in bailiffs being instructed.
If these are broken down by demographic that would be very helpful.
Kind regards

REPLIED

12 January 2010 15:53:40
Dear Sharon,

Many thanks for your email.
We do have this information available. However, as we are not covered by the Freedom of Information Act, a charge will be applicable.
The CIPFA Revenue Collection Statistics is an annual return and covers all local authorities in England and Wales. The latest published statistics are for 2008-09 and are available in spreadsheet format at £230 (+VAT) or in hard copy format at £120. Please note that the hard copy will not be sent for at least four weeks as it has not yet gone to print.
If you would like to purchase either of the above or would like further information on the statistics, please do get back to me.
Kind Regards
Julia Kairis
Data Analyst
Research and Statistics, CIPFA
t: 020 8667 8185

www.cipfastats.net

[charitynjw]

Re: Council tax enforcement in magistrates’ courts

Hi Amethyst,

(From post #10
"The budget that `benefits' from the payment of costs is the Council Tax budget. We have to collect the monies and that is offset against the total budget we are given for each financial year. We don't actually benefit, as such, from the costs we collect because they go towards the costs we incur collecting the Council Tax."

Ahh - a cross-subsidy; sort of 'Robin Hood in reverse' (I know I've heard that before somewhere...........) lol

[EXC]

Re: Council tax enforcement in magistrates’ courts

They do have the right to extend the response period if they have to consider the public interest - happened once to me with an OFT request.

As we're a day short of the 21 Jan deadline I can't see that there's anything we can do until after tomorrow.

[Amethyst]

Re: Council tax enforcement in magistrates’ courts

Got a reply - and some info, very heavily redacted. Ie most info has been removed lol. Will type up whats here, its 5 A4 pages and everything is blank barring this. Read this then read the announcement by bridget prentice made three days after my original FOI request.

it is emails between the MOJ and the Dept of Communities. don't know who tho as the names are redacted, also don't have the dates.

'' Subject: council tax benefit and non custodial options for refusing to pay council tax

blank

yes, it seems that the word, 'conviction'' in S87 of the MCA act 1980 is not wide enough to include Liability orders.

So in order to be able to enforce your liability orders in the county courts you need to give yourselves an enabling clause in primary legislation (an act) and then in any accompanying statutory instrucment you will need to set out the exact wording of the Civil Procedure Rules 70.5 ''

-------------------------

then 5 blank emails with just the subject showing

--------------------------

many thanks for your prompt response.

This is just to let you know I shall be away from my desk for most of tomorrow, but i should be around about lunchtime

--------------------------------


I'm getting my legal department to look at this but at first glance it looks like the word conviction is the killer term. We had thought it said conviction or order but on checking you are right. We are now wondering whether it may also mean order. We will look into this.

if it is the case that you do not yet have the facility to transfer these orders then a primary power (ie provision on the face of an Act) or an enabling claise in an Act to make regulations will be required. The enabling provision will need to include the exact wording used in CPR 70.5 and we can send you examples of other legislation which has used the correct wording

blank

----------------

blank

[Amethyst]

Re: Council tax enforcement in magistrates’ courts

magistrates courts act s87

87 Enforcement of payment of fines by High Court and county court

(1)Subject to the provisions of subsection (2) below, payment of a sum adjudged to be paid by a conviction of a magistrates’ court may be enforced by the High Court or a county court (otherwise than by issue of a writ of fieri facias or other process against goods or by imprisonment or attachment of earnings) as if the sum were due to the [F1designated officer for] the magistrates’ court in pursuance of a judgment or order of the High Court or county court, as the case may be.
[F2(1A)For the purposes of taking the step mentioned in paragraph 38(1)(e) of Schedule 5 to the Courts Act 2003, the reference in subsection (1) above to “the designated officer for the magistrates' court” shall be construed as a reference to the fines officer.]
F3(2). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
F4(2A). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(3)The [F5designated officer for the magistrates' court] shall not take proceedings by virtue of subsection (1) above to recover any sum adjudged to be paid by a conviction of the court from any person unless [F6there has been an inquiry under section 82 above into that person’s means and he appeared to the court to have sufficient means to pay the sum forthwith.]
[F7(3A)The fines officer shall not, for the purposes of taking the step mentioned in paragraph 38(1)(e) of Schedule 5 to the Courts Act 2003, take proceedings by virtue of subsection (1) above to recover from any person a sum mentioned in paragraph 1 of that Schedule, unless the fines officer has made an inquiry into that person's means and he appeared to the fines officer to have sufficient means to pay the sum forthwith.]
(4)F8. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]

CPR 70.5


Enforcement of decisions of bodies other than the High Court and county courts and compromises enforceable by enactment

70.5

(1) This rule applies, subject to paragraph (2), where an enactment provides that –
(a) a decision of a court, tribunal, body or person other than the High Court or a county court; or

(b) a compromise,

may be enforced as if it were a court order or that any sum of money payable under that decision or compromise may be recoverable as if payable under a court order.

(2) This rule does not apply to –
(a) any judgment to which Part 74 applies;

(b) arbitration awards;

(c) any order to which RSC Order 115 applies; or

(d) proceedings to which Part 75 (traffic enforcement) applies.


(2A) Unless paragraph (3) applies, a party may enforce the decision or compromise by applying for a specific method of enforcement under Parts 71 to 73, Schedule 1 RSC Orders 45 to 47 and 52 and Schedule 2 CCR Orders 25 to 29 and must –
(a) file with the court a copy of the decision or compromise being enforced; and

(b) provide the court with the information required by the practice direction supplementing this Part.


(3) If an enactment provides that a decision or compromise is enforceable or a sum of money is recoverable if a court so orders, an application for such an order must be made in accordance with paragraphs (4) to (7A) of this rule.

(4) The application –
(a) may, unless paragraph (4A) applies, be made without notice; and

(b) must be made to the court for the district where the person against whom the order is sought, resides or carries on business, unless the court otherwise orders.


(4A) Where a compromise requires a person to whom a sum of money is payable under the compromise to do anything in addition to discontinuing or not starting proceedings (‘a conditional compromise’), an application under paragraph (4) must be made on notice.

(5) The application notice must –
(a) be in the form; and

(b) contain the information

required by the practice direction supplementing this Part.

(6) A copy of the decision or compromise must be filed with the application notice.

(7) An application other than in relation to a conditional compromise may be dealt with by a court officer without a hearing.

(7A) Where an application relates to a conditional compromise, the respondent may oppose it by filing a response within 14 days of service of the application notice and if the respondent –
(a) does not file a response within the time allowed, the court will make the order; or

(b) files a response within the time allowed, the court will make such order as appears appropriate.


(8) If an enactment provides that a decision or compromise may be enforced in the same manner as an order of the High Court if it is registered, any application to the High Court for registration must be made in accordance with the practice direction supplementing this Part.