Council Tax Liability Order Applications Court Costs – Test Case

[outlawlgo]

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

Pleased to see you will not give up hope you get a result before you get a permanent headache from banging your head against the brickwall tjat gets in your way everytime you try to get answers its disgusting that actions taken by the authorities are not clear and open to scrutinywish i had the patience to pursue my grievances over the years i always gave up to easy

It wasn't expected they'd willingly hold there hands up and admit to the wholesale lifting of £millions from householders in false costs claims, but there's something seriously wrong with the justice system.

Evidently your chances of getting a CTAX liability order reversed are pretty slim once granted. If the order can be obtained as a mere formality, why should it be so difficult, if subsequently it's found the Bench or the Council made a mistake, for it to be wiped from the slate. In theory it's simple, but the local authority has to be relied on to make the application to the Magistrates' court to have the liability order quashed under provisions of the Local Government Act, at section 82. The problem arises in the fact local authorities think they're never wrong so is likely they'll only do this once in a blue moon.

The only other option is this, appealing the order in the high court, which, when compared to the £3 application for the local authority, could cost potentially many thousands times more. The justice system is stacked in the local authority's favour, as demonstrated with the blatant disparity of the cost to access the court. The Magistrates courts' fees to state a case for an appeal to the High Court being £500 alone. Costs for such action could then escalate into £thousands, for an unsuccessful appeal – a likely outcome when considering potential losses in government revenue if it were adjudged the process was a sham.

To top it all off, parliament never thought of creating a level playing field when it passed CTAX enforcement legislation. This as it stands, specifically allows local authorities to automatically charge their court application fees to the defendant (along with made up costs), whereas nothing was written into the rule book that advantaged members of the public in the same way when they wanted to take court action against the council.

[wales01man]

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

Pleased to see you will not give up hope you get a result before you get a permanent headache from banging your head against the brickwall tjat gets in your way everytime you try to get answers its disgusting that actions taken by the authorities are not clear and open to scrutinywish i had the patience to pursue my grievances over the years i always gave up to easy

[outlawlgo]

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

The Magistrates Court has not responded to the "14 days notice" of intention to seek Judicial Review for a mandatory order requiring it to state a case to the High Court. Neither has it responded to the letter proposing alternative remedies that would have avoided unnecessary litigation.

One can only speculate why the justices are so resistant in having the High Court consider points of law outlined in the appeal. It must be serious for them to be the cause of two High Court appeals being necessary to get these issues out in the open.

It was hoped the Judicial Review procedures would not be necessary but under the circumstances it seems this is the only option, other than risking the pitfalls of entering into the recognizance conditioned by the Justices, undoubtedly set as deterrent from taking the appeal further.

A mandatory order requiring the justices to state a case does not simply entail requesting it from a superior court, it can only be achieved by Judicial Review, i.e., a second High Court application.

As mentioned it was hoped getting involved in this procedure would be unnecessary, however, another couple of days researching the process has hopefully been enough to satisfactorily navigate the application stage.

Of relevance for Judicial Review is the Civil Procedure Rule Part 54. The supplementary instructions necessary to comply with this application is Practice Direction 54A.

Notes for guidance on applying for judicial review can be accesses on the justice website. The claim form necessary for permission to apply for judicial review is Form N461.

Guidance outlines that it is expected other possible remedies should have been explored as an alternative to litigation as well as notification given to the defendant of the intention to apply for Judicial Review. In my opinion this has already been complied with in the communications sent for which no response has been forthcoming. It is therefore my intention to file the claim in the relevant Administrative Court by the end of this week which requires several copies of the completed Claim Form and indexed copies of documents contained in the application.

[outlawlgo]

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

Justices' Clerk for Humber & South Yorkshire
Doncaster Magistrates' Court
PO Box 49, The Law Courts
College Road
DONCASTER DN1 3HT

29 April 2013

Dear Justices' Clerk

Re: Application to State a Case – Grimsby Magistrates’ Court

In the absence of a response to my 5 February 2013 letter I request consideration be given to issuing a certificate under section 111(5) of the MCA 1980, documenting the reasons why the justices have refused to state the case. This will enable further investigation to the merits of my case by seeking the High Court’s permission to proceed with a claim for a mandatory order.

I have sought legal advice and understand that in a straight forward case, a justices’ clerk’s refusal to state the case until a recognizance has been entered into, does not constitute a refusal, and would not ordinarily be obliged to supply the applicant with a certificate stating that the application has been refused.

However, this is not straight forward as the justices have exercised their discretion to require a recognizance, knowing I qualify for fee remission. This would signal that in the unlikely event, all or part of the £500 became payable, it would cause financial hardship. In any event, not setting a recognizance fee would not prejudice the Magistrates’ court’s position.

It can therefore be argued that my means have not been taken into account in considering the amount set for the recognizance, something the magistrates must do.

Presumably the sum is set at a level that would commit the applicant to the case, but bearing in mind magistrates must take into account a person’s means, if decided necessary, a recognizance should be set at a level that does not deny that person access to justice. Of course if the case is considered to lack merit, this would also factor into any consideration.

From a perspective of commitment and having a valid case arguable in law, neither of these give rise to warrant recognizance. The following, is a record of the correspondence which you have (or can access) and supports claims that an argument has been prepared to be put before the High Court.

• Twelve letters in total sent as attachments in an email (22 October 2012) to Grimsby Magistrates' court’s listing Manager, comprising evidence that costs claimed and awarded were not reasonable (Re: Council Tax Liability order Hearing - 2nd November 2012). Letters were dated 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 of September and 1 October 2012, all with reference NG/CTR/12912.

• Another email (28 October 2012) sent to the same Manager had two further correspondence attached, comprising a summary, additional information and a claim for costs. Letters were dated 26 and 28 October 2012, again with reference NG/CTR/12912.

The above are the relevant documents sent to Grimsby Magistrates court in respect of the November 2, 2012 liability order hearing. Additional evidence has been compiled in the interim and will contribute further in support of an argument to be put before the High Court.

Please acknowledge receipt of this letter and provide either a response addressing the issues I’ve raised or certificate stating that my application has been refused explaining the reason.

If a response is not forthcoming within 14 days I will take it that the justices are both refusing to state the case and to give a certificate and will apply for permission to bring judicial review proceedings for a mandatory order requiring the Court to state a case. In these circumstances magistrates can be required to pay the costs for the various fees involved in applying to the High Court for this order.

Yours sincerely

[outlawlgo]

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

I could leave the council in the dark and allow it to pursue this erroneous action and reveal all at the Magistrates' court hearing. But knowing the level of corruption at Grimsby's HMCTS branch, is it likely they would ignore the facts and find in the council's favour?

North East Lincolnshire Council
Finance Department
Cleethorpes
North East Lincolnshire

22 April 2013

Dear Head of Income and Collections

Re: Council Tax Reminder – Acc 550xxxxxxx

A computer generated letter received on 19/04/13 threatens summons costs of £70, instalment facility withdrawal and demand for immediate payment for the entire Council Tax liability if payment is not made in accordance with the request.

I can confirm already making payment in respect of April's instalment and believe the council has made a mistake.

I presume because disputed costs have been carried forward to this year's account and were not included in my payment, the council tax system has "soft allocated" funds, therefore leaving an overdue amount on this year's account. This, if not reversed, will inevitably involve unnecessary legal action.

Though outlining the probable cause, I suspect the error is not straightforward. The council's software appears unable to function correctly in circumstances where a balance has been carried forward from a previous year.

The discrepancy surrounds the sum of the total balance becoming payable. The stated sum excludes an amount equal to the costs carried forward, but is what makes up the overdue amount. The system is in effect demanding last year's costs (an unrelated matter) as an overdue amount from this year's council tax but simultaneously having no account for it in the total balance. It could be then, that by raising this, a serious programming error in the Council Tax software has been identified which I trust will be investigated on resolving my own issues.

I doubt this has been a deliberate act for the purpose of generating extra summons revenue, but if it transpires it has been engineered to cause default, I will not hesitate escalating this to the Local Government Ombudsman. In the more likely case this glitch has occurred as a consequence of its Council Tax software package, I request the misallocated funds are reallocated to this year's account thereby offsetting my 2012-13 liability. If the department deems this to be outside its powers, I ask that the judgment of "Peter v Anderson" is sought.

This does raise another important point in regards the incurred summons cost claimed by the authority. It is questionable how nearly a million pounds each year can be incurred in a largely automated process. The absence of human involvement is evident in the authority's apparent confidence that its council tax system can be depended on to function correctly and progress to recovery without any monitoring, as the erroneous notice highlights.

Yours sincerely

[outlawlgo]

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

I have to post this as a warning to anyone who might happen to be in any doubt as to the level of crookedness of those in our town halls.

Despite having already paid this month's Council Tax instalment, I've received a computer generated letter from the council today, threatening summons costs of £70, instalment facility withdrawal and demand for immediate payment for the entire Council Tax liability if their demands were not met.

This has happened, presumably because disputed costs have been carried forward to this year's account, but because no resolution has been reached, were not included in my payment. It seems there's no depths to which these vultures will not sink in their pursuit to catch out as many charge payers as possible with their bogus court costs.

In addition to the extra £millions generated through these costs, one wonders how much extra interest is earned for the council by demanding early payment through withdrawing instalment facilities.

[outlawlgo]

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

Nearly 10 weeks since requesting clarification from the Clerk to the Justices for the purpose of progressing this appeal. No direct response to my 5 February 2013 letter, only a couple of moronic emails from her assistant.

Contacting the Clerk to the Justices directly got no response:

From: outlawlgo
To: Alison.Watts@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
Sent: February 19, 2013
Subject: Magistrates court Doncaster 5 Feb 2013.pdf

Dear Ms Watts

Would you please acknowledge you have received my letter dated 5 February 2013. For your reference, the file (letter) attached to my 6 February 2013 email was "Magistrates court Doncaster 5 Feb 2013.pdf"....

And only intransigence from her assistant:

From: outlawlgo
To: karen.crocken@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
Sent: February 26, 2013
Subject: No Response to mail?

Dear Ms Crocken

Will you please update me with the situation regarding my correspondence and explain why I haven't yet received acknowledgement. If yourself and Alison Watts are intentionally ignoring mail please let me know so I can take the appropriate action....

From: karen.crocken@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
To: outlawlgo
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 4:31 PM
Subject: RE: No Response to mail?

Good afternoon Mr .....

Thank you for your email. Please be advised that receipt of your correspondence was made on 6 February as per the attachment.

I can confirm that your correspondence is receiving attention from Mrs Watts who will respond further in due course.

Regards, Karen Crocken
Legal Admin Team Leader - Humber & South Yorkshire Cluster

From: outlawlgo
To: karen.crocken@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 12:13 PM
Subject: Re: No Response to mail?

Dear Ms Crocken,

It seems apparent that Mrs Watts has no intention of dealing with the issues I raised in my 5 February 2013 correspondence. All I would like from you is to acknowledge this so I can take appropriate action.

From: karen.crocken@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
To: outlawlgo
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 1:51 PM
Subject: RE: No Response to mail?

Hello Mr .....

I hereby acknowledge receipt of your email, which is receiving attention.
Regards, Karen Crocken

From: outlawlgo
To: karen.crocken@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 2:59 PM
Subject: Re: No Response to mail?

Dear Ms Crocken,

You appear to have misunderstood. The acknowledgement I was seeking was that;

"Mrs Watts has no intention of dealing with the issues I raised in my 5 February 2013 correspondence".

Not as it seems, an acknowledgement of my last email asking for this acknowledgement....

Grimsby and later, Doncaster Magistrates' Courts have been outrageously impossible to deal with. I've found HMCTS to be run with complete incompetence and primarily for profit. Being a law unto themselves, you're completely ignored if there's no money in it for them.

The staff turnover and removal of posts has not gone unnoticed whilst having the misfortune of dealing with HMCTS. Having discontinuity must be a strategy no doubt to ensure incompetence is never pinpointed and complaints never resolved.

[outlawlgo]

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

Carrying on from the local news article and the theme of "fantasy court costs", West Somerset Council's Review of these must be up there with the best.

In its bid to align its charges with other Somerset billing authorities, it upped its summons penalty by 11% and introduced Liability Order costs of £11 which in all, made for a 44% hike in costs.

Its combined Council Tax and Business Rates budget for 2010/11 was £44,500 which compared with £58,050 costs raised in 2009/10.

Even with £3,483 of this paid to the Magistrates Court in fees (£3 for each case listed), the council it seems was not only within its Council Tax and Business Rates budget but was in fact making a £10,067 profit.

It estimated with the increase in Summons Costs and introduction of a Liability Order fee it would generate additional income totalling around £19,500 annually.

Either West Somerset Council's figures were wrong or my calculations are, because it considered the revised charges were necessary to fully recover the councils cost. These were already more than covered, but with increased charges, there would be an estimated £29,567 surplus.

Even factoring in a 10% write-off which the Council states is the average of Court Costs written off; prior to upping costs, the council would still be £4,262 in the money.

Perhaps the "draft fees policy" which it referred to, played as much a part to incentivise certain behaviour (like encouraging prompt payment), as the additional income generated.

4.1.4. As well as covering the Districts Council’s costs it is envisaged that the increased level of Summons Costs and the introduction of the Liability Order fee will act as a further incentive for Charge payers to ensure that their instalments are kept up to date. This is also in accordance with the draft fees policy as it is designed to ‘encourage behaviour’.

6. SECTION 151 OFFICER COMMENTS

6.1. This is one example of the practical application of the fees policy. Without that document to act as guidance, it is nonetheless good practice to recover costs in respect of court action from those ‘driving’ the level of activity, and to encourage payment with a deterrent.

6.2. Councillors will note the comparative charges for other authorities, and that the proposed fees are not inconsistent.

Taunton Dean Borough Council in its similar Review to increase Summons and Liability Order Costs was more ambitious with a 63% overall increase to roughly match its Strategic Finance Officer's calculation that the cost of these were £74.57.

3.8 The Strategic Finance Officer has calculated the cost of issuing summonses and liability orders for non-payment of Council Tax and Business Rates as being £74.57. Allowing for small variation in the assumptions made, it is suggested that the charge for a summons be increased to £63.50 and the charge for a liability order be increased to £10 from 1 April 2011.

[outlawlgo]

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

There's a news article dealing with this subject today....

Court costs earn Councils millions:

"It's thought potentially, many millions of pounds may have been overcharged by Councils in the pursuit of Council Tax recovery since its introduction in 1992.

It has long been speculated that Councils profit from taking householders to court for being late with Council Tax payments.

Local Authorities are charged a fraction of the amount passed on to residents in costs. Each Liability Order applied for costs councils £3 according to the Magistrates' Courts fee schedule. Struggling householders are then charged many multiples of this, for example, one London Borough Council imposes £125 costs for making late payments for Council Tax, but for Business rates, this increases to £220 for an identical process.

Further irregularities are highlighted where costs – predetermined by councils – are imposed in advance of the hearing. According to law, an award of costs are at the discretion of Magistrates' courts on hearing the complaint.

Another Council in the South of England reveals in a document reviewing court costs that where previously it was necessary to seek approval from the Court to ensure costs being levied were reasonable, this was no longer required and "confirmed that it is for the Council to decide on an appropriate level".

One authority in the North East admits court costs are determined in-house. A Freedom of Information request uncovered a letter sent to the Magistrates' court advising that the "Council has taken the decision to increase the court costs which it charges to tax payers for the non payment of Council Tax".

The same council revealed that it aimed to cover the entire budget for running its Council Tax department from court penalties, and with £0.88 million costs raised it had not made a bad attempt. It claimed its annual budget for all activity associated with recovery of Council Tax amounted to around £1.13 million, this compared with a figure of £1.04 million as the cost for council tax administration including staff costs, contact centre costs, enforcement, other running costs and central recharges.

The law doesn't allow for profits, only reasonable cost incurred for the administration involved, but councils increase costs as a "deterrent" element or to coerce payment. The same council documented that "the extra cost is seen as a way of encouraging prompt payment", and as a bonus would raise additional income of £38k a year. There is nothing in legislation to support an increase in costs on this basis.

According to statistics obtained from the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA), court costs for Council Tax and Business rates in England and Wales raised more than £179 million in 2010-11. Based on these figures and indexing inflation – since 1992 (the introduction of Council Tax) the best part of £3,500 million may have been overcharged by councils in a bid to finance Council Tax administration.

[outlawlgo]

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

A54,

Like you say you're required to make an application for judicial review if you wish to a apply for a mandatory order:

From: xxxxx
To: outlawlgo
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 11:36 AM
Subject: Application for order of mandamus - section 111(6) of the Magistrates' Court Act 1980

Morning,

Please note that if you wish to apply for a mandatory order then this cannot be done by letter and must be done by way of an application for judicial review. Please see our website as regards the appropriate forms and guidance and fees (http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk) Please note that you should take independent legal advice as to the merits of your claim and the possible costs consequences.

Please get back to me if you have any queries.

Regards

xxxxxxxx | Case Progression Officer | Administrative Court Office | Telephone:

Some information recently obtained has rendered unnecessary most of the research to prove costs unlawful.

In an earlier post I highlighted the council's claim that its annual budget for all activity associated with recovery of Council Tax amounted to around £1.13 million:



A recent FoI response stated this:

The cost of collection for council tax administration which includes the staff costs, contact centre costs, enforcement, other running costs and central recharges for the required years are

2009 £785k
2010 £1187k
2011 £1043k (£1.04 million)
2012 £933k

So for the same period, where the council claimed total costs for Council Tax Administration was £1.04 million, a higher figure (£1.13 million) was put forward to account for all activity associated with recovery.

How can they justify the recovery budget to be £88,550 higher than the entire council tax administration costs which includes council tax recovery expenditure?

Clearly, local authorities consider it acceptable that defendants paying court costs should be financing entire Council Tax administration, which according to Council Tax legislation is unlawful.

[A54]

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

Absolutely!

Please do not stop now or you'll be letting them off the hook.

The High Court staff must not be seen to be giving you legal advice although as a LIP they should be 'understanding', this could explain the response you got from them.

The magistrates' court deal with such issues all the time and play on the fact that a lot of people give up at this point, in my experience so far the high court is not the same and will (hopefully) give you a fair hearing.

I mentioned your case to Alan Murdie (who's unfortunately retiring this month), he feels that judicial review is the way to go to make the magistrates state the case without demanding £500 recognizance. He also felt you need to take the argument to a wider arena, e.g. the press and recommended the editor of the sunday times (who has previously taken interest and published such issues) and also the sunday telegraph who may be interested.

It may not be an easy battle but you have already done so much of the hard work, it would be a shame to give up now.

Best.

[outlawlgo]

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

The High Court were sent details clearly explaining the situation regarding the Magistrates' court with all relevant documents, including a copy of the notice served on the court for it to "State a Case" for an appeal to the High Court.

Is it worth carrying on with this...?

From: xxxxx
To: outlawlgo
Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 8:31 AM
Subject: Application for order of mandamus - section 111(6) of the Magistrates' Court Act 1980

Good morning,

I have read the contents of your letter and believe that you will either need to submit a Case Stated Appeal Application in the Admin Court or a Judicial Review.

It will be the former if the Justices stated the case.

This will need to submitted on a form N161, £235 fee, a copy of your case stated and any other supporting correspondence including a memorandum of entry. If it’s a criminal matter then the court requires 3 copies to keep. Any challenge via Case Stated would need to have been submitted within 10 days of you receiving the case stated. If not, then you would need to complete section 8 of the N161 requesting an extension of time.

If the Judge refused to state the case then the decision at the Magistrates Court may possibly be able to be challenged via Judicial Review.

If possible please contact me via phone on the above number to discuss, just in case I have not read your e-mail correctly.

Happy discuss the above.

Many thanks

xxxxxxxx | Case Progression Officer | Administrative Court Office | Telephone:

[outlawlgo]

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

Administrative Court Office
The Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London
WC2A 2LL

23 March 2013


Dear Sir/Madam

Re: Application to Magistrates' Court to state a case for an appeal to the High Court

In accordance with section 111(6) of the Magistrates' Court Act 1980, I apply to the High Court to make an order of mandamus requiring the justices to state a case.

Background prompting this Application

An appeal notice was served on Grimsby Magistrates Court on 22 November 2012 in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Rules, rule 64.2 (see attached). Written acknowledgement was received dated the same.

No contact was made by the court until January 14, 2013, prompted by attempts to make contact with the Deputy Justices' Clerk dealing with the appeal. At this point I was informed the Clerk had left the service at the end of 2012.

The matter had been put in the hands of the Justices' Clerk for Humber & South Yorkshire, who on 24 January 2013 advised that the Justices require recognizance to be entered into in the sum of £500 (see attached).

In a letter 05 February 2013 (see attached) several queries were raised concerning the Justices' Clerk letter, one of which being the recognizance set in my particular financial circumstances would deny my access to the Courts.

I've heard nothing since, all but an email on 27 February 2013 confirming that the correspondence is receiving attention from the Justices Clerk who will respond further in due course.

It seems as things are, there is no likelihood of this matter progressing, however, I consider the point of law I'm contesting is in the public interest and ask the Administrative Court's opinion on this.


Yours sincerely

[outlawlgo]

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

Still no reply from the Justices' Clerk regarding the High Court appeal (letter sent 5 February 2013). The council have still to reply to the letter sent 14 February 2013.

I'll take back my criticism of all things automated as the council's computer systems appear more reliable than the staff employed at the offices.

The 2013-14 Council Tax demand notice has arrived this morning and surprisingly the disputed costs (£60) are listed as a separate item on the demand. I take it then, they are still expecting payment whilst at the same time, ignoring correspondence on the matter.

It seems their bailiffs, Rossendales, have not been instructed to collect this sum and so wonder what the councils plan is to enforce payment. They stand no chance of making an attachment of earnings, nor benefits as I'm in receipt of neither. They cannot, make a charging order for under £1,000, and similarly cannot bring about bankruptcy proceedings for such a small sum.

The most ironic part of their demand notice is where they ask potential informants for details of suspected Fraud. I've told them enough times who is defrauding who in regards council tax enforcement, but will they listen?

[outlawlgo]

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

In the correspondence dated 17 September 2012 (post #4) I dealt with the highly questionable practice, which is standard routine for all Local Authorities, to state a sum of costs payable on the summons document, which by law must be issued a minimum 14 days before the day the complaint is heard at the Magistrates' court.

I'm going to take the opportunity of extending this and looking at what various legislation and case law provides, for the purposes of awarding costs in liability order applications for Council Tax. This will be considered from two angles 1st— A straightforward look at legislation specifically relevant to Council Tax; 2nd— Comparing a High Court case to establish whether the same judgment could apply.

First Approach – Relevant Legislation

My assertions were that it would not be lawful for the local authority to assume the role of the court by awarding itself costs in the form of a set amount of its own choosing; neither with or without the agreement of the Magistrates courts. The defendant by law must be given at least two weeks notice of the court hearing, meaning the costs (being stated on the summons) are imposed and demanded at least two weeks prematurely by the council, not Magistrates' court. This as I've expressed previously is not how costs are conventionally awarded; this being the bench's discretion at the court hearing.

The Magistrate's court Act 1980 backs this up at Section 64(1)(a) where it states.

64 Power to award costs and enforcement of costs.

(1) On the hearing of a complaint, a magistrates’ court shall have power in its discretion to make such order as to costs—

(a) on making the order for which the complaint is made, to be paid by the defendant to the complainant;

(b) on dismissing the complaint, to be paid by the complainant to the defendant,

as it thinks just and reasonable....

(2) The amount of any sum ordered to be paid under subsection (1) above shall be specified in the order, or order of dismissal, as the case may be.

It categorically states above that a Magistrates' court has powers to award costs at its discretion, "on the hearing of a complaint", not any time before. They provide further that any sum of costs awarded shall be "specified in the order", not demanded with the summons which by law must be served 14 days (at least) before the hearing.

Interestingly it also provides for an award of costs, payable to the defendant should the complaint be dismissed; so in theory, the system works both ways. This was not my experience when a district judge effectively said 'on your bike' when I enquired about costs after a liability order made by the court in error was quashed. Incidentally it was the Magistrates court breaching the Data Protection Act by sending to me, names and account details of others that caused the council to pursue me as a consequence of mistakenly making payments to one of those accounts.

But back to the plot:

A contradiction, in the case of liability order applications, arises in the council tax regulations, where at regulation 34(5)(b), it states costs are payable on the summons being served.

34—
...(5) If, after a summons has been issued in accordance with paragraph (2) but before the application is heard, there is paid or tendered to the authority an amount equal to the aggregate of—

(a) the sum specified in the summons as the sum outstanding or so much of it as remains outstanding (as the case may be); and

(b) a sum of an amount equal to the costs reasonably incurred by the authority in connection with the application up to the time of the payment or tender,

the authority shall accept the amount and the application shall not be proceeded with.

Regulation 34 provides for the application for a liability order to be halted should the aggregate of outstanding council tax owed plus reasonable incurred costs be paid or tendered to the authority. The main point, and the issue anyone with a knowledge of the sums involved would agree, is that the costs are not reasonable, but additionally there's an Act of Parliament and Statutory Instrument opposing each other.

On the one hand, the Magistrates court Act (primary legislation) gives the court discretionary powers to award costs "on the hearing of a complaint", whilst 34(5)(b) of the Council Tax regulations (secondary legislation), provides for "reasonable costs incurred", which if paid in advance of the hearing along with the outstanding liability brings the procedure to an end. However, it provides only for reasonable costs, not a fixed amount which the local authority states on the summons, and serves in advance of the court hearing.

This is a paper-scissors-stone scenario where you'd think logically, the Act of Parliament would take precedence, therefore trumping secondary legislation, rendering the council demanding costs prior to the hearing unlawful.

The hierarchy however, doesn't end there. It's possible the authority may argue that the Local Government Finance Act 1992 – which lays down the boundaries to which the Council Tax regulations must conform – may specifically provide a clause taking precedence over any other legislation. Would the government introduced a one off clause enabling the wholesale extortion of the lower incomed public?

They could argue for example, that Schedule 4 of the Act, provides for a set prescribed amount of costs incurred prior to the complaint being heard; possibly agreed with the court or by a panel.
Looking at the relevant part it would appear possible:

(2) The regulations may include provision that the order shall be made in respect of an amount equal to the aggregate of—

(a) the sum payable; and

(b) a sum (of a prescribed amount or an amount determined in accordance with prescribed rules) in respect of the costs incurred in obtaining the order.

Whether "an amount determined in accordance with prescribed rules" could be construed as a set prescribed amount is of no relevance. Although being primary legislation, the Local Government Finance Act – unlike the Magistrates Court Act which is a stand alone piece of legislation – lays down boundaries for which the secondary legislation, the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations, must conform.

The Council Tax Regulations have been created from, and conform with boundaries laid down in the primary legislation. Hence: "The regulations may include" etc. etc., and as such, it is the Council Tax Regulations which are relevant.

34—
...(5) If, after a summons has been issued in accordance with paragraph (2) but before the application is heard, there is paid or tendered to the authority an amount equal to the aggregate of—

(a) the sum specified in the summons as the sum outstanding or so much of it as remains outstanding (as the case may be); and

(b) a sum of an amount equal to the costs reasonably incurred by the authority in connection with the application up to the time of the payment or tender,

the authority shall accept the amount and the application shall not be proceeded with.

So, regardless of what boundaries are laid down in the LGFA, the relevant legislation which applies, does not provided for a prescribed fee, and until such time the primary legislation is revisited for amendment purposes, the law only states "costs reasonably incurred".


Second Approach – High Court Judgment in Costs case

Looking at it from another angle, this time bringing in the judgment of a High Court case: R (Desouza) v Croydon Magistrates' Court [2012] EWHC 1362 (Admin).

This case involved environmental issues where the original cause of complaint surrounded noise emanating from a Police Station – slamming of car doors, deliveries, police sirens etc. The relevant legislation being the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

A key issue in this case, and relevant to costs being discussed, is a District Judge awarded costs under section 64(1) of the Magistrates' Court Act. The High Court judgment ruled that the District Judge had no power to make the costs order and must therefore be struck down.

The error arose from the Judge not being referred to section 50 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980, which provides:

In any enactment conferring power on a magistrates' court to deal with an offence, or to issue a summons ... against a person suspected of an offence, on the complaint of any person, for references to a complaint there shall be substituted references to an information.

The High Court judgment further explains with relevance to the Environmental Protection Act:

8. Section 82(2) conferred on the magistrates' court power to deal with an offence, hence the power to impose a fine. Section 82(1) must therefore be read as if the word "information" is substituted for "complaint" in subsection (1) so that thus amended, it reads:

"A magistrates' court may act under this section on an information made by a person on the ground that he is aggrieved by the existence of statutory nuisances."

9. Three consequences follow from that straightforward statutory provision:

1. When issuing a summons the court was doing so on an information laid by the claimant under section 1(1) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980;

2. When he dismissed the case against the defendants the District Judge was dismissing an information not a complaint;

3. He had no power to award costs under section 64(1), a power which can only be exercised on the dismissal of a "complaint" as its express terms made clear:

"64. Power to award costs and enforcement of costs.

(1) On the hearing of a complaint, a magistrates' court shall have power in its discretion to make such order as to costs -

...(b) on dismissing the complaint, to be paid by the complainant to the defendant.

As it thinks just and reasonable..."

Adopting this sleight of hand and fitting it to Council Tax Liability Order applications, the corresponding part to the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 (S.I. 1992/613) would be:

Regulation 34(2) conferred on the magistrates' court power to deal with an offence, hence the issue of a summons. Regulation 34(2) must therefore be read as if the words "laying information" is substituted for "making complaint" in subsection (2) so that thus amended, it reads:

"The application is to be instituted by laying information to a justice of the peace, and requesting the issue of a summons directed to that person to appear before the court to show why he has not paid the sum which is outstanding."

This all seems to have been achieved by smoke and mirrors, but the important thing is, if the court had no power to award costs on account of the judge dismissing an information rather than a complaint, then it would have no power to award costs in making an order. By the same token, a court would be making an order in regards an information rather than a complaint.

Clearly then, if the judgment in the Desouza v Croydon Magistrates' Court applies to liability order costs in Council Tax cases, the court doesn't have, and never has had, any power to award costs under section 64(1) of the Magistrates' Court Act 1980.