Council Tax Liability Order Applications Court Costs – Test Case

[xxx111]

Re: Council Tax Liability Order Applications Court Costs – Test Case

Just a note of support having suffered at the hands of Great Yarmouth Borough Council . I produced all my receipts to the court proving payment within the rules and still had a liability order issued against me. I have never seen such a blatant miscarriage of justice from such a simple case.

Keep up the fight your followers await your victory.

[charitynjw]

Re: Council Tax Liability Order Applications Court Costs – Test Case

Hi xxx111, & welcome to Legal Beagles.

[lawful rebel]

Re: Council Tax Liability Order Applications Court Costs – Test Case

Yes the collusion between the councils and the magistrates courts in my opinion is blatent.Ive heard theres pretty much no point in going to your local police about anything like this,at best you will get "its a civil affair ,we dont get involved".I wonder if you got that in writing and showed it if police arrived to back up baillifs whether it would still be "its a civil affair,we dont get involved".Possibly in the very occassional instance but generally it seems the councils,courts and police have for want of a better description a "common purpose"

[outlawlgo]

Re: Council Tax Liability Order Applications Court Costs – Test Case

Yes the collusion between the councils and the magistrates courts in my opinion is blatent.Ive heard theres pretty much no point in going to your local police about anything like this,at best you will get "its a civil affair ,we dont get involved".I wonder if you got that in writing and showed it if police arrived to back up baillifs whether it would still be "its a civil affair,we dont get involved".Possibly in the very occassional instance but generally it seems the councils,courts and police have for want of a better description a "common purpose"

Hopefully a recent report ("download here") from the Department of Communities and Local Government will have a positive influence on the police in taking a view more in favour of the victim – particularly at paragraph 5.8:

"5.8 The Government consider that any fraudulent practices should be reported to the police as a criminal offence under the Fraud Act and that Local Authorities should terminate any contract with companies whose activities are proved fraudulent.

Just a note of support having suffered at the hands of Great Yarmouth Borough Council . I produced all my receipts to the court proving payment within the rules and still had a liability order issued against me. I have never seen such a blatant miscarriage of justice from such a simple case.

Keep up the fight your followers await your victory.

The same document at paragraph 3.4 may indicate that some pressure is being applied by the government, perhaps meaning local authorities will no longer act with impunity when inventing ludicrously inflated sums that they charge to ratepayers as incurred expenses in conveyor belt style court applications.

Perhaps pointing this out to the bench at the Magistrates' court when your council expect an award of costs upward of £70.

"3.4 Local Authorities are reminded that they are only permitted to charge reasonable costs for the court summons and liability order. In the interests of transparency, Local Authorities should be able to provide a breakdown, on request, showing how these costs are calculated.

[labman]

Re: Council Tax Liability Order Applications Court Costs – Test Case

Things might be changing, as far as getting more transparency over these issues. Secretary of state for the Department of Communities and Local Government, Eric Pickles, is having his say on these matters.

Download a copy of his report here

Of particular relevance is Paragraph 3.4 of the report:

This link was also published the same day as the report as a sticky in the bailiff section - it's Number 10 under Useful Links. Hopefully that will raise awareness of it also.

[bluebottle]

Re: Council Tax Liability Order Applications Court Costs – Test Case

If these new provisions have the teeth they are supposed to have, I am wondering just how long it will be before JBW loses its shiny new contract with Plymouth City Council? Capita/Equita/Ross & Roberts got the heave-ho on 30 April 2013. I had a call from Plymouth CAB about JBW and have offered to work with them on any complaints recieved against JBW. Although JBW claims to be ethical, in the words of Jim Royle, "Ethical, my arse."

[outlawlgo]

Re: Council Tax Liability Order Applications Court Costs – Test Case

It requires an outstanding memory to retain credibility when telling porkies.

We know councils are pulling the wool over our eyes when they tell us the vast summs they charge in summons costs are incurred.

Can it cost all these millions for a process run by computer software, having parameters set which when criteria has been met, triggers automatically thousands of summonses to be sent out?

In this post, with a little help from FoI, we discover how Reigate and Banstead Borough Council tried but embarrassingly failed in its attempt to insult our intelligence.

It was asked of the authority for data covering a number of years in respect of Council Tax and Business Rates (NNDR) summons costs, in particular the costs charged to individual householders in respect of these and a justification for when they were increased. A second part asked for an account describing the difference (if any) between liability order applications, i.e., Council Tax and NNDR.

All can be seen here:(FoI 131409), but what led to the council being rumbled was the letter (17 March, 2009) applying to Redhill Magistrates Court wishing to increase its court summons costs. Incidentally, exactly the same paragraph was contained in another sent 29 February 2012 wishing to increase both Summons and Liability Order costs. It also found its way into a Cabinet Report of the Head of Revenue and Benefits in a review of court costs for Eastleigh Borough Council.

"It is apparent with the increase in the actual time spent in the preparation work, the time spent in court and with customers, the current charges are insufficient to cover the true cost of this area of work and therefore a review has been undertaken to avoid this cost falling on those majority of taxpayers who pay their bills on time.

The requester subsequently asked if it could be clarified with regards the letter, what the increases in "time spent" were a consequence of.

What needs to be considered in conjunction with the above was the response explaining why costs for Business rates had been on average 40% higher than Council Tax.

"With regard to your second question, the basic differences are that there are two separate teams dealing with the issuing of Council Tax and Non Domestic Rates summonses. As there are fewer Non Domestic Rates summonses the cost per summons is greater than Council Tax.

Note that fewer summonses make for higher costs per account. Presumably the logic being that issuing more summonses reduces the cost per unit owing to automation and is why the individual charge must be higher for Business rates – compensating for costs having to be split between fewer people.

Getting back to the question regarding the letter to the Magistrates' court; i.e., "It is apparent with the increase in the actual time spent in the preparation work, the time spent in court and with customers...."

Six months later after several prompts, Reigate and Banstead Council supplied its answer, which incidentally did not include the information asked for, but gave a general description of what work is carried out (or what should be carried out) in dealing with liability order applications.

"All our court summonses are manually checked before being posted, this includes checking against our Document Image System and our Revenues Software for each account where a Court Summons has been produced. In addition once a Court Summons has been posted our staff deal with all payment arrangements and associated queries. Our average court list will contain over 800 accounts. All our staff can potentially deal with a Summonsed account and my team will each spend approximately 40 hours per month dealing with summonsed accounts

It was put back in the council's court that it had not been explained what the increase in time spent was down to. Two months on, it supplied the answer, stating contrary to its earlier logic that the increase in time spent (therefore extra costs), was down to experiencing increased volume of summons & liability orders in comparison to a previous year.

"At the time the letter in question was sent (March 2009) we had just experienced a 7% increase in the number of summons & liability orders issued in 2008/09 compared to 2007/08.

As a result the time spent in preparation work increased accordingly.

So there it is, even before checking the figures, the council inadvertently dropped itself in it by wanting to have its cake whilst at the same time eating it. Whilst justifying higher costs per individual in NNDR applications it considered this to be down to fewer numbers incurring them. On the other hand, when applying to the Magistrates' court for an increase in costs, it justified this by the claim that higher court applications were being experienced.

On looking at the figures though, as the reply stated, liability orders had increased by 7%, however, the number of summons had increased by 50%. The interesting thing is in regards the other letter to the court applying for an increase in both Summons and Liability Order costs (29 February 2012) there was a corresponding decrease of around 14% in respect of both penalties. According to Reigate and Banstead Council's logic they should have been informing Redhill Magistrates Court that they wished to reduce its court summons and liability order costs. This of course didn't happen and the generic letter was in use again, i.e., "It is apparent with the increase in the actual time spent in the preparation work, the time spent in court and with customers...."

Even for someone having no understanding of what's involved – Magistrates' for example – the ploy should have been doomed for failure. It would take some front to tell a customer it made sense that 10 items cost £1 each but if they wanted 15 of them that would be £20 please. It doesn't work that way at the shops I go to.

Following is a more realistic estimate, using data before the 2009 increase in summons cost as a base. Although very unlikely, we will assume the figures were an accurate reflection of costs incurred.

In 2007-08 the summons incurred by each individual was £40, so costs raised according to the recorded 3,617 issued would be £144,680.

£40 will have been picked at random by the authority therefore bearing no relation to true expenditure, but for demonstration purposes we'll say this was equal to a sum reasonably incurred in producing the summons.

The following year (that which the estimation was based upon) summonses increased by 1,807 (50%) to 5,424. We know any costs which need adding in respect of this increase will be limited to those specific to each unit summons, i.e., Magistrates' court's fee (£3), postage, stationary etc., so £6 per summons would be a generous amount to add.

1,807 extra summonses at £6 = £10,842 to be added to the £144,680 costs raised in 07-08 (£155,522) split between the 5,424 defendants makes a cost per summons of £28.67. So instead of applying to Redhill Magistrates Court wishing to increase its court summons costs by 12.5% it should have been to inform it that the council had experienced a change in the number of summons which required a 28% reduction of the summons cost.

[outlawlgo]

Re: Council Tax Liability Order Applications Court Costs – Test Case

Getting back on track with the claim for Judicial Review.

Received confirmation today that the Magistrates' Court has lodged the Acknowledgement of Service with the Administrative Court at Leeds, in respect of the Claim form (N461) and submitted evidence.

The information most relevant to the stages expected to follow are detailed in the final paragraph of the court's submission at Section C of the response:

"The defendant to this matter is a magistrates' court.

The claimant has made an application to the Justices in relation to proceedings commenced against him by North East Lincolnshire Council (the interested party in this application for Judicial Review) for them to state a case in relation to their decision to make a liability order in respect of costs arising from the proceedings for non-payment of council tax.

In connection with that application the claimant was requested by the defendant magistrates' court in accordance with section 114 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 to enter into a recognizance to prosecute his appeal in the High Court without delay. Statute makes provision for this step to be taken by the court and therefore the court is perfectly entitled to seek a recognizance prior to stating a case. In seeking a recognizance the defendant court was by definition prepared to state a case as this is implicit in the statutory provision allowing for a recognizance to be required. That remains the position of the defendant court.

A recognizance does not require any money to be paid 'up front' unlike court fees which are required to be paid before work on an application is undertaken. Indeed a recognizance is but a promise that the individual who enters into the recognizance makes to pay some or all of a sum of money determined by the court in the event that he/she fails to prosecute his/her case in the High Court without delay. Accordingly no money need ever be paid if the matter is pursued by the appellant in the High Court and even if the appeal were not pursued in the High Court, there would still need to be a hearing to determine whether in the fact some or all of the recognizance should be forfeit.

To date the claimant has not appeared before the defendant court to enter into a recognizance. Had he done so the question of the appropriateness of the recognizance and/or the amount could have been considered by the court.

Rather than formally responding to the claim for permission to apply for a judicial review, even though the Justices do not agree with the claim that has been made by the claimant, in the interests of saving the Administrative Court time and public money on a matter that is likely to reach the Administrative Court via the route of an appeal by way of case stated, the defendant court gives an undertaking that the draft case will be served upon the defendant within fourteen days of the date of this acknowledgement of service.

For a reminder, the original appeal, to which the draft case should now be served, is this application to state a case.

[three rivers of corruption]

Re: Council Tax Liability Order Applications Court Costs – Test Case

Does that translate as they are overlooking the recognizance issue and are proceeding to serve the case (to state a case) to the defendant (Grimsby and Cleethorpes Magistrates'Court) within 14 days of 8. July. 13.

[Ref]

Re: Council Tax Liability Order Applications Court Costs – Test Case

I've been tracking this since the submission was made by the applicant to state a case to the high court. This was made clear by the clerk t.t.Justices at the original magistrates court to be the only avenue open to the defendant to appeal the benches decision to grant the order.

In my opinion, the most recent contributor (three rivers of corruption) has spotted an error in the submission by the (substitute) Clerk to the justice's reply to the judicial review claim for mandatory order by highlighting (or hinting at) the magistrates' clerk mixing up who the defendant and appellant is, maybe as a subtle contribution I'd expect?

[outlawlgo]

Re: Council Tax Liability Order Applications Court Costs – Test Case

Does that translate as they are overlooking the recognizance issue and are proceeding to serve the case (to state a case) to the defendant (Grimsby and Cleethorpes Magistrates'Court) within 14 days of 8. July. 13.

It seems that way, but you can only speculate as to the real reason that decision was made. It could be the claim for a mandatory order through judicial review has convinced the Magistrates' Court that the application (case stated) was serious. On the other hand, if the decision to state the case without recognizance, was made purely "in the interests of saving the Administrative Court time and public money on a matter that is likely to reach the Administrative Court via the route of an appeal by way of case stated", then it's logical to assume the court viewed it a possibility that the judicial review may have resulted with a mandatory order being made.

Considering the following submitted in the acknowledgement of service:

"To date the claimant has not appeared before the defendant court to enter into a recognizance. Had he done so the question of the appropriateness of the recognizance and/or the amount could have been considered by the court.

I'd gone to considerable lengths to address this and other issues beginning 5 February 2013, after learning the court would only state the case conditioned on agreeing recognizance to the sum of £500. However, there was never any response, and therefore no way of knowing the recognizance may be negotiable on its arrangement at the Magistrates court as suggested.

....In my opinion, the most recent contributor (three rivers of corruption) has spotted an error in the submission by the (substitute) Clerk to the justice's reply to the judicial review claim for mandatory order by highlighting (or hinting at) the magistrates' clerk mixing up who the defendant and appellant is, maybe as a subtle contribution I'd expect?

I see your point, though I'm unsure if there's been an error in the submission regarding mixing up who the defendant is. It's possible that the court, by using the term "defendant", is referring to me the defendant at the council tax liability order, who has now become the appellant (defendant on application to state a case) in the subsequent proceedings. Whether or not there's been a slip-up, the court, by "undertaking that the draft case will be served upon the defendant within fourteen days", have meant me, rather than Grimsby and Cleethorpes Magistrates' Court.

[outlawlgo]

Re: Council Tax Liability Order Applications Court Costs – Test Case

A letter from the council..........

19 July 2013

Dear Mr ....

Yourself v Grimsby Magistrates Court & NELC

I write further to the legal proceedings issued by yourself at Leeds High Court against Grimsby & Cleethorpes Magistrates Court, naming North East Lincolnshire Council as an interested party. The papers have been passed to me upon Mrs X's departure from employment with the Local Authority.

The purpose of my writing to you is to inform you that the £60 court costs, which you dispute, will be suspended until the outcome of the proceedings. At the completion of those proceedings, dependent on the Court's decision, the fee will either be withdrawn from your account or will remain outstanding to the Local Authority.

A copy of this letter has been sent to the Leeds High Court for their information.


Yours sincerely

for Group Manager Legal & Democratic Services

[outlawlgo]

Re: Council Tax Liability Order Applications Court Costs – Test Case

"3.4 Local Authorities are reminded that they are only permitted to charge reasonable costs for the court summons and liability order. In the interests of transparency, Local Authorities should be able to provide a breakdown, on request, showing how these costs are calculated.

Anyone having the recent document produced by the Department of Communities and Local Government may want to look at the amended version.

The document entitled "Guidance to local councils on good practice in the collection of Council Tax arrears", has, for anyone wanting to challenge the reasonableness of summons costs, an important addition at paragraph 3.4

"3.4 Local Authorities are reminded that they are only permitted to charge reasonable costs for the court summons and liability order. In the interests of transparency, Local Authorities should be able to provide a breakdown, on request, showing how these costs are calculated. While it is likely that authorities will have discussed costs with the Clerk to Justices it should be recognised that the Court may wish to be satisfied that the amount claimed by way of costs in any individual case is no more than that reasonably incurred by the authority.

One of the rare occasions where a FoI request served some useful purpose.

[labman]

Re: Council Tax Liability Order Applications Court Costs – Test Case

Very interesting. LA's are going to be hit with a real nightmare once people start to challenge this. Hopefully the bigger charities will challenge on an annual basis to ensure costs are kept accurate, and not just 'plucked out of thin air.'

[outlawlgo]

Re: Council Tax Liability Order Applications Court Costs – Test Case

Very interesting. LA's are going to be hit with a real nightmare once people start to challenge this. Hopefully the bigger charities will challenge on an annual basis to ensure costs are kept accurate, and not just 'plucked out of thin air.'

The most obvious circumstances where it would be inconceivable (at a fair trial) to lose a challenge against costs would be where the defendant paid the outstanding liability in-between summons issue and liability order hearing. We know the process is automated so any action in connection with the authority's application to the court will be as a consequence of parameters set on the council's computer system. So how would the authority justify anything more than postage, stationary and the £3 fee paid to the court?