Council Tax Liability Order Applications Court Costs – Test Case

[outlawlgo]

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

North East Lincolnshire Council

28/07/14

Dear Sir/Madam

Re: Council tax Ref: 550xxxxxxx – 15 March 2014 Formal Complaint

I refer to the council’s stage 1 complaint response dated 24 July 2014 and would like to escalate this matter to stage 2 of your complaints process.

After assessing its contents I’m satisfied that the officer given responsibility for dealing with the matter has not investigated it appropriately. The token gesture, which is all the response amounts to, serves no purpose other than a back covering exercise for North East Lincolnshire Council (NELC), for which it has shifted responsibility to the Magistrates’ Court. This is no less than I expected and why I objected in March for the officer who has responded to be involved.

Unfortunately however, the negligence and corruption of the Magistrates’ Court and the Ministry of Justice as a whole is another matter to be dealt with separately. It was therefore inappropriate that NELC pointed the finger in that direction on this occasion.

The fact remains that the Liability Order was obtained solely for an element of the authority’s standard summons costs. They have been demonstrated to be fraudulent, made possible courtesy of a considerable helping hand from NELC by way of cabinet reports etc. and surprisingly its incriminating calculation which supported my assertions that its expenditure did not comply with the relevant law.

There is sufficient detail in my letters dated 15 March and 14 July 2014 for me not to need adding further to it here. All that should be required is for the person next given responsibility to investigate this complaint, does it properly.

However, there is another matter which needs raising regarding NELC and the amount of time it wastes of the Council Taxpayer. The same officer allocated the task of dealing with this matter made it known to me previously that the council do not take a stage 1 complaint seriously – considering it a test of the complainant’s commitment which is verified by him escalating it to the next stage.

Yours sincerely

outlawlgo

[outlawlgo]

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

From: outlawlgo
To: Watts, Alison
Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2014
Subject: Restricted Contact - Application to State a Case - Grimsby Magistrates' Court

Dear Mrs Watts,

Restricted Contact – Application to State a Case - Grimsby Magistrates' Court

With regards communication with Humber and South Yorkshire, I would like informing whether Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service has any arrangements in place to restrict my contact.

If so, I wish to know in what/which way(s) the organisation has restricted contact. For example, this may be by telephone, email, letter etc., or a combination of these. It may be that the organisation has blocked emails without telling me and would like to know if this is the case.

I look forward to your response.


Yours sincerely

Should have had a response by now so wonder if the reason there hasn't been one is because they know that the evidence is so stacked against them that the simplest way to get away with the theft is to prevent a case coming before the court?

Something which sums the corruption up is found in Great Yarmouth Borough Council's Public Consultation:

Have your say on change

Section C – How could the borough council save money?

Navigate through the questionnaire to section C (last question on page) and it asks the public how willing they would be for the council to increase 'summons costs' as a measure for saving money, or plugging a hole in its finances.

Ranging from Very willing to Not at all willing:

To increase the fees for court summons for people who have not paid their council tax - estimated extra income Ł26,000

This is not new however, there is already one council that raised its cost on the strength of a ballot.....

Scroll down to the heading "Income Generation"

Budget Consultation-2011-12

[outlawlgo]

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

For complaints about magistrates personal conduct (as opposed to disputes about their decisions).

See here: http://judicialcomplaints.judiciary....ints_judge.htm

There's a new webpage for making judicial complaints, now as per link below:

http://judicialconduct.judiciary.gov.uk/
A complaint has been submitted regarding the Magistrates perverting the course of justice.

Judicial Complaint 2 Sept 2014

[outlawlgo]

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

This calculation supporting Leicester City Council's recovery expenditure says quite a lot about the integrity of local government officers.

In its calculation it includes Officer's hourly rate, TWICE (shown around cell (H7) of the spreadsheet).

Quite criminally, by falsifying accounts to rob more from the taxpayer, they calculate the hourly rate at Ł13.94 then double that figure to Ł27.88 because they consider the cost of employing staff to cover for the non-recovery work while staff are dealing with recovery work to be allowable expenditure, cell (H11).

This rate was applied to 21,519 hours, equivalent to Ł599,949.72 added on in recovery costs of which at least half was added by sleight of hand.

Apparently, district auditors give the all clear for these obviously falsely represented accounts.

It gets worse

If Leicester City Council seemed to be splashing out with its inflated Ł27.88 hourly rate I wonder what the fraud squad would think to an hourly rate of Ł173.21 ?

This is what South Gloucestershire Council charge for the Head of Service's involvement in recovery activity.

The full calculation is "Here (link)"

A sample of the hourly charging out rate is below. Obviously South Gloucestershire Council deem this to be reasonable costs incurred:

• Head of Service – Ł173.21 / hour
• Revenues Manager – Ł93.56 / hour
• Recovery Manager – Ł67.82
• Council Tax Manager – Ł67.82
• NNDR Manager – Ł67.82
• Snr Recovery Officer – Ł54.24
• Snr Council Tax Officer – Ł54.24
• Recovery Officer – Ł47.21
• Council Tax Officer – Ł47.21
• NNDR Officer – Ł47.21
• Clerical Officer – Ł32.56

P.S. You'ld hope their basic math's skills would be up to more than this.

[outlawlgo]

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

I was naively optimistic that the council were going to make a proper job of investigation this time; partly because the arguments put forward in the various documents left them no real option to do otherwise and because the investigating officer took the trouble to discuss the complaint beforehand. The response, however, has been the usual biased work that is expected of officers looking after their own, only it took longer to concoct than usual.

The investigation – rather than getting down to specifics – took the direction of justifying its actions with no more depth than you'd expect from kids at infant school. There is no way it seems of changing their mentality in how they view the laws that govern their actions. Even when their errors are spelt out repeatedly to them they still have the arrogance (or stupidity) to carry on bending the law.

Its final response

15th September 2014

PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL

Dear Mr outlawlgo,

I refer to the letter dated in which it was confirmed that your complaint had been escalated to the final stage of the Council's complaints procedure. The issues you have raised have been investigated which has included a review of the stage 1 response. This investigation has been undertaken independently of the officers that have previously handled your complaint.

The enclosed investigating officer's report details the findings of this investigation which I consider has been correctly and fairly carried out in accordance with the Council's Feedback Policy.

If you are not satisfied with this response and the outcome of your complaint, you have the right to take the matter to the Local Government Ombudsman, whose contact details are as follows:

LGO Advice Team
The Local Government Ombudsman
PO Box 4771
Coventry CV4 0EH
Tel: 0845 602 1983
Fax: 024 7682 0001

I would like to thank you for bringing these issues to the Council's attention. This has been, of necessity, a formal response driven by our Feedback Policy and procedures, designed to ensure full, fair and impartial examination of concerns which arise. I am personally always very keen to see how we can improve our services and learning from complaints is one way of achieving this. Although you may not be happy about all aspects of my conclusions, I am hoping you will accept that this matter has had proper consideration.

Yours sincerely

Rob Walsh
Chief Executive

North East Lincolnshire Council

Stage 2 Corporate Complaint Investigation

PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL

Head of Service: Sharon Wroot (Assistant Director - Finance)
Service Area: Council Tax
Investigating Officer: Sara Hemming (Team Manager - Strategy, Policy and Projects)
Complaint Reference: NEL/8009/1415

Final decision of Investigating Officer:

This investigation has found that the Council acted in accordance with the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulation 1992 and the Guidance to local councils on good practice in the collection of Council Tax arrears at all times and thus the Liability Order was obtained lawfully and should remain on Mr Yyyyy's account.

The complaint is not upheld.

Summary of complaint:

Mr Yyyyy considers that the Liability Order to enforce the outstanding Ł60 court summons costs was obtained fraudulently by North East Lincolnshire Council and therefore requires it to be removed from his account.

Mr Yyyyy's desired outcome of this complaint is to have the Ł60 court summons costs removed from his account and for North East Lincolnshire Council to propose a provisional sum as compensation for damages for refusing to resolve this matter.

How the complaint was considered:

Sara Hemming, Investigating Officer, met with Mr Yyyyy at the Municipal Offices on Friday 8th August.

An examination of correspondence received from Mr Yyyyy, including:

• Formal complaint letter 15/03/14
• Supplementary complaint letter 14/07/14
• Request to escalate to Stage 2 letter 28/07/14
• Draft "case stated" (and representations made on that case) with regards the High Court application and Grounds of appeal etc. submitted in the Information Rights Tribunal, supplied by Mr Yyyyy on 10/08/14

An examination of e-mails between Mr Yyyyy and lan Hollingsworth, Information Governance, Complaints and Consultation sent between 15/03/14 and 28/07/14

An examination of correspondence from North East Lincolnshire Council including:

• Stage 1 complaint response letter 24th July 2014
• Council Tax reminder letter 12/09/12
• Council Tax summons letter 10/10/14 [10/10/12]
• Recovery of Council Tax letter 05/11/12

Sara Hemming, Investigating Officer interviewed Neil Smith, Court Enforcement Officer on Wednesday 13th August.

Sara Hemming, Investigating Officer interviewed Richard Catlyn, Lead Officer Local Taxation on Wednesday 20th August.

Cabinet report "Review of Council Tax court costs" 17/02/14

The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulation 1992

Council Tax - Guidance to local councils on good practice in the collection of Council Tax arrears.

Findings:

The concerns raised by Mr Yyyyy have been addressed and the relevant findings are detailed below.

Mr Yyyyy believes that the Liability Order obtained to enforce the outstanding Ł60 court summons costs was obtained fraudulently by North East Lincolnshire Council. This complaint is not upheld.

The Guidance to local councils on good practice in the collection of Council Tax arrears ( the Guidance) makes it clear that enforcement is a necessary and important part of Local Authority activity and that every penny of council tax that is not collected means a higher council tax for the law-abiding citizen who does pay on time. The Guidance goes on to state that where a payment is overdue, a bill payer should receive at least three statutory communications before further action is taken:

• Reminder for payment
• Court summons
• Notification that the liability order has been granted and unless the amount owing is paid, bailiffs are likely to follow

The Guidance also states that local authorities should ensure that at each stage full information is provided about what the bill payer can do to avoid the situation. This should include where they can go for help and advice, be clear about the next steps and that charges for the court summons and for liability orders should be clear on all documentation with clear information on how they can be paid and how they will be collected if not.

In Mr Yyyyy's case he received each of these communications. The reminder letter dated 12/09/12 clearly indicates that an instalment of Ł85.52 was missed and that if this was not received by the 26/09/12 that the total balance of Ł437.52 would become payable immediately. This letter also made it clear that if payment was not received that a summons would be issued, without further notice, and that Ł70 costs would be incurred. This letter also clearly explained how payments could be made and how to get advice if Mr Yyyyy was experiencing a debt problem.

Mr Yyyyy was given every opportunity to pay the initial missed payment and then the full amount outstanding, without incurring any charges. He was also informed of the consequences of not making those payments and how much the costs associated with this course of action would be. Following receipt of the summons letter Mr Yyyyy did make a payment of Ł437.52 plus an additional Ł10 for costs, this left and outstanding sum of Ł60.

It is Mr Yyyyy's belief that North East Lincolnshire Council is obliged to calculate the level of costs incurred in individual cases who exercise their legal right to challenge them. The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulation 1992 (The Regulations) allow the Council to make an order in respect of a sum of an amount equal to the costs reasonably incurred in obtaining the order, the regulations do not specify what expenditure mayor may not be included within the level of cost charged to the non-payer.

The Cabinet report from 17/2/14 explains that it is not practical to calculate the level of costs incurred in each individual case and therefore a reasonable estimate must be made of the total of such costs, divided by the estimated number of applications to be made for a summons. The Regulations do not place any statutory requirement on the Council to calculate the costs on an individual basis.

Mr Yyyyy also believes that North East Lincolnshire Council inappropriately raises revenue through Magistrates summons costs. The Guidance states that local authorities are only permitted to charge reasonable costs for the court summons and liability order and that in the interests of transparency they should be able to provide a breakdown, on request, showing how these costs are calculated. North East Lincolnshire Council provided a detailed breakdown based on activity and costs on it's website for 2012/13, this was updated for 2013/14. These breakdowns have been through stringent checks both internally and by the District Auditors.

The Clerk to the Justices is kept informed of the costs that are to be charged for a summons for Council Tax. The Guidance highlights that 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. In Mr Yyyyyy's case he chose to attend court and provide evidence to the magistrates outlining why he felt that the remaining Ł60 summons costs were unreasonable, in this case the Liability Order was granted for the outstanding amount, this would indicate that the Court were satisfied that the amount claimed was reasonably incurred by the Council.

Details of final recommendations:

This investigation has found that the Council acted in accordance with the Regulations and the Guidance at all times.

No justification can be found to remove the Ł60 court summons costs from Mr Yyyyy’s account and the investigation cannot provide any evidence to support Mr Yyyyy's request for compensation for damages.

The recommendation is that North East Lincolnshire Council consider the options available to them to recover the outstanding Ł60 and decide on what will be the appropriate course of action to take. The Council should ensure that Mr Yyyyy is duly informed of any action that is to be taken.

Investigators decision on behalf of the Chief Executive:

Sara Hemming

Head of Service:

Sharan Wroot

[outlawlgo]

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

I have high hopes for the Reverend Paul Nicolson's judicial review into Council Tax summons costs. This link might be of interest to readers.

Council leaders in England and Wales asked not to seek costs for council tax liability orders until they review their legality and rationality.....

[bizzybob]

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

I have high hopes for the Reverend Paul Nicolson's judicial review into Council Tax summons costs. This link might be of interest to readers.

Council leaders in England and Wales asked not to seek costs for council tax liability orders until they review their legality and rationality.....

The question is How many will listen and desist until after the case?

[outlawlgo]

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

The question is How many will listen and desist until after the case?

I doubt this one would stop even then.

[Crazy council]

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

Hi [MENTION=8136]outlawlgo[/MENTION]

Am on this with our council, 20th Nov if you fancy poppijng.

Am using both teh costs, and the 1p liability orders, and requesting JR of the processing of LOs,

[outlawlgo]

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

Hi @outlawlgo

Am on this with our council, 20th Nov if you fancy poppijng.

Am using both teh costs, and the 1p liability orders, and requesting JR of the processing of LOs,

Some more proof that summonses are being sent out without first being checked on this thread (See link). It's more serious that they do this when they're told of the administrative error and carry on regardless.

P.S. Next Thursday then?

[redleg]

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

I doubt this one would stop even then.

Its good to see you are still fighting this , mine is still been investigated by the ICO

[outlawlgo]

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

Its good to see you are still fighting this , mine is still been investigated by the ICO

Yes! Still at it redleg. The ICO is still on the case then......

I Remember last time this was being discussed a complaint was almost ready for submitting to the Local Government Ombudsman appealing the way North East Lincolnshire Council fixed its investigation into the formal complaint. This is seriously being delayed due to incorporating details (and complaint) about the Magistrates’ court perverting the course of justice which I'm suggesting the LGO jointly investigates in conjunction with the Parliamentary Ombudsman under powers granted by 2007 Regulatory Reform legislation.

On top of that I am including the spurious bailiff fees charged by NELC’s enforcement contractor documented over a 5 year period. These are known to have the aggregate value of around a third of a million pounds added fraudulently to householder’s council tax accounts with respect to vehicle attendances and returning goods which had never been removed from premises in the first place.

It will be suggested that the sample material is evaluated, and if found through preliminary investigations to suggest there has been large scale fraud, then the matter be referred to the Serious Fraud Office.

Although the Magistrates' court has blocked the High Court appeal, thereby perverting the course of justice, the work involved in preparing the case bundle which has ultimately been down to North East Lincolnshire Council's official error will also be provided to the LGO to substantiate the gross inconvenience which has been caused by the council. This is all taking more time than anticipated, but hopefully in the end it will be worth it and we'll see many high ranking officials being held to account for this gross abuse of the taxpayer.

EDIT:

Links added on 23 November 2014

[redleg]

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

[QUOTE=outlawlgo;494282]Yes! Still at it redleg. The ICO is still on the case then......

Yes they have been investigating it since the 26th of October.
The officer did say he thinks the council have complied with the FOI act in regard to replying to my emails within the 20 days , i did have to inform him that he was mistaken and on two occasions the council failed to comply with the statutory legislation.
He requested proof.! so i forwarded 35 emails to him, lol bet he loved them..!
Anyway i haven't heard anything since the 26th so i might give him a call tomorrow.

Another thing i have found is, the justices clerk who's signature appears on all the Council summons , Apparently its the same justices clerk that signs all the summonses in the Essex and Cambridge district and the clerk is based in Petty France London.
Now forgive me if im incorrect in my assumption, but according to the case Regina v. Brentford Justices, Ex parte Catlin and from what Lord Widgery stated regarding issuing warrants and summons i can only deduce that any council issued summons is void.
Also there is the question of delegation Or passing off as it is known, how can a delegated authority be delegated in law..?
Maxim of law states delegatus non potest delegare,"one to whom power is delegated cannot himself further delegate that power"
So we have another conundrum should a FOI be sent to HMCTS requesting the delegation letter of authority from the magistrates to the justices clerk ,then from the justices clerk to the deputy clerk and the council ?

[outlawlgo]

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

The R. v. Brentford Justices case also provided the case law that councils use in their defence when challenged on rubber stamping summonses.

For further info read this (See Link), the relevant part of the judgment around half way through the article, beginning as follows:

It is perfectly proper for a signature to be affixed by way of rubber stamp, whether applied by the justice or by a clerk or an employee of the magistrates’ clerk with the authority....

[redleg]

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

Just found this , may be of interest to you another angle so to speak https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reque...ncoming-600542