Council Tax Liability Order Applications Court Costs – Test Case

[outlawlgo]

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

Unbelievable! Though having said that post #16 of this thread details North East Lincolnshire council exhibiting similar negligence.

See half way down the post under the heading, "Defective Summons Documents".

From what I remember this was reported to Humberside Police but they covered for their buddies and swept it under the carpet.

[redleg]

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

Does this ring a bell..? http://www.mblseminars.co.uk/Home/Speaker?SpeakerID=847

[outlawlgo]

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

Does this ring a bell..? http://www.mblseminars.co.uk/Home/Speaker?SpeakerID=847

The Justices' Clerk in your link went off the radar around the same time that Grimsby Magistrates' court perverted the course of justice at the liability order hearing.

Looks like he got promoted to a District Judge and can make money on the side.

[outlawlgo]

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

Is Newcastle City Council seriously admitting that its motive for increasing and front loading court costs is to act as a penalty and generate extra income to plug a hole in its budget.

Page 6 of Newcastle City Council's 2015/16 Budget proposal

Increase court costs

In line with our tougher approach to dealing with debt recovery we propose revising our court costs for summons and liability orders. As shown in the table below, we propose to front load costs at Summons stage to incentivise debtors to settle their debts at an earlier stage in the recovery process. A combined charge of £100 is inline with Tyne and Wear neighbours.

Charge	Current	Proposed
Summons	£42	£60
Liability order	£42	£40

This will need to be agreed by the Magistrates court, and will generate an additional £70k per year (in addition to any increased recovery of debt).

[Amethyst]

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

Sounds like it.

[outlawlgo]

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

Sounds like it.

Newcastle council must have never been told about the case law.

It was held on judicial review of a licensing case, R v Highgate Justices ex parte Petrou [1954] 1 ALL ER 406, that costs should not exceed the proper costs incurred and should not be a penalty.

Lord Goddard CJ said in the Regina v Highgate Justices ex parte Petrou case:

"I regret that any bench of justices could have acted as these justices did. They were not imposing costs on the applicant; they were imposing a penalty on her......

[redleg]

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

Is Newcastle City Council seriously admitting that its motive for increasing and front loading court costs is to act as a penalty and generate extra income to plug a hole in its budget.

Page 6 of Newcastle City Council's 2015/16 Budget proposal

At least they have come out and admitted it that more than the rest of the county councils are doing.
Everyone receiving court summons and LO's now needs to to challenge these costs, as the regulations only stipulate costs reasonably incurred.
How can they now justify raising the costs to create more revenue and still claim the cost to be reasonable?
Also i see they aim to hit the Tax payer two fold with a 2% rise in the overall cost , Something that will need a public referendum to implement.

[outlawlgo]

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

At least they have come out and admitted it that more than the rest of the county councils are doing.
Everyone receiving court summons and LO's now needs to to challenge these costs, as the regulations only stipulate costs reasonably incurred.
How can they now justify raising the costs to create more revenue and still claim the cost to be reasonable?

These local authorities stick to the letter of the law if it works against their residents. When written to regulate their actions they interpret it however they want.

[leclerc]

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

Newcastle council must have never been told about the case law.

It was held on judicial review of a licensing case, R v Highgate Justices ex parte Petrou [1954] 1 ALL ER 406, that costs should not exceed the proper costs incurred and should not be a penalty.

Lord Goddard CJ said in the Regina v Highgate Justices ex parte Petrou case:

"I regret that any bench of justices could have acted as these justices did. They were not imposing costs on the applicant; they were imposing a penalty on her......

Cos the leader to made the proposal is an accountant: http://www.newcastle.gov.uk/news-story/tony-coming-home

[outlawlgo]

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

Cos the leader to made the proposal is an accountant: http://www.newcastle.gov.uk/news-story/tony-coming-home

In the eyes of his employer he has probably justified his salary with this single manoeuvre. Its just a pity he could not have brought in an additional £70,000+ revenue each year by more lawful methods.

[outlawlgo]

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

On the theme of Newcastle City Council.

It seems after checking out its neighbouring authorities, its claim that 'a combined charge of £100 is inline with Tyne and Wear neighbours', is not entirely true.

This would appear questionable as Newcastle's proposed increase would bring its costs to a level exceeding most of its neighbours. For example, South Tyneside council's are recorded at being £62.00 overall with summons charged at £38.00 and £24.00 added if a liability order is obtained (2013/14). For the same year Durham County Council charged £80 overall.

However, there are apparently at least two of its neighbouring authorities which have proposed similar increases and are in line with Newcastle. Northumberland County Council is one, and because North Tyneside's costs evidently mirror Northumberland's, NT is another.

Prior to 1 April 2011, Northumberland charged overall costs of £60 but from then increased to £100. The proposals were detailed in its Council Tax Billing Options (Appendix E):

35. Based on actual costs of £402,326 that were paid to the Council in 2009/10 an increase of £20 to £50 for the summons costs and an increase of £20 to £50 for the liability order costs (£100.00 in total) to bring the Council more in line with neighbouring Authorities will result in a potential increase in income of £268,217 to £670,543.

There was opposition from members of a Scrutiny Committee of the proposed increase to £100 and was suggested that a more modest increase to £80 would be fairer.

The proposal was defended by it being pointed out that the 'costs were at the discretion of the Magistrates Court and that they in no way covered the cost of recovery action. It was also noted that it was only those who had not paid their Council Tax/Non Domestic Rates, despite having been given all the available options, who would be penalised.'

It is held on record that at the time, discussions were underway with North Tyneside Council regarding shared services and was suggested no decision made on increasing costs until discussions had taken place to ensure that both Authorities were charging the same level.

Though unable to find a link to anything documenting the outcome of the discussions with North Tyneside, it is known that the proposed costs are currently charged and can be safely assumed that the increase was agreed and applied in respect of both authorities.

Another reference is found in the February 2011 Medium Term Financial Plan 2011/2015 and Budget 2011/12 at paragraph 54:

54. These revised policies are designed to encourage prompt payment, provide additional assistance to residents by enabling payment over twelve months and encourage the use of direct debit as the most cost effective method of payment.

Another of its neighbouring authorities, Gateshead Council proposed increases to raise an additional £100k with these court costs.

The public were consulted on choices available to make savings as part of the budget setting process for 2014/15 and budget planning for 2015/16. It was proposed in the report that Gateshead council could generate additional income by increasing Council Tax and Business rates court costs. Page 31 of its 15 October 2013 report to Cabinet documents the relevant matter, as follows:

(ii) Income – the Council could increase its charges in relation to court costs and the recovery of Council Tax and Business Rates monies. This option could generate income of up to £100,000.

Another document (Comprehensive Impact Assessment 2014-16), which at the time only appeared to be available via Google's cache (no longer any trace) added that the savings would be made by increasing its current charge for court costs by £15 from £70 to £85.

[outlawlgo]

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

The Guardian - 2 April 2015

Thought the bedroom tax was bad? Let’s talk about cuts to council tax support

The Guardian (above link) reported yesterday on how cuts to council tax support have affected benefit claimants, particularly those who were previously exempt from paying any council tax. For a change, the article highlights this aspect of the Welfare Reforms which has much less media attention than the so called 'Bedroom Tax'.

These issues were raised earlier in this thread, but the Guardian focuses more on the moral aspect than the legal implications that were raised in the contribution posted on 2nd October 2013, i.e., that the likelihood that profiting from the much higher generation of court costs income would be unlawful.

What appears to be happening is local authorities are tending (each budget) to increase the amount that claimants, who were previously exempt, are now having to pay. As reported 'Families are expected to pay between 5% and 30% of their total council tax liability'. On the first year of the scheme, central government incentivised councils with extra funding to limit this amount to 8.5%. Initially councils were keen to take up the offer but available funding was for the first year only so there was no incentive to limit payments after that.

North East Lincolnshire Council was one of those councils that initially limited payments to 8.5%. It has since increased this so that claimants who were previously exempt are now having to pay 25% of their liability. What's more it refused, on behalf of it residents the 1% funding from the government to freeze council tax this year so it could, without consulting residents, increase it by 2%. It went even further by raising additional income by charging again for collecting garden waste, which was already included in the council tax, but without even bothering to carry out a lawful consultation.

[outlawlgo]

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

The Independent - 07 April 2015

Half a million more people summoned to court over unpaid council tax, after benefits scrapped

The Independent (above link) follows on from the Guardian's April 2nd article and reports on the effects of the Welfare Reform. Still though, there is no hint of anyone or organisation questioning the legality of continuing to charge the same standard costs, even when the report itself focuses on the fact that "Court summonses for non-payment of council tax increased by 30 per cent in local authorities with minimum payments".

It is known and admitted by councils that pro rata costs reduce with an increased volume of cases, so to carry on charging the same level for sometimes nearly double the number of cases does not need a genius to realise there is potential for profiting from the Magistrates' court.

Figures obtained from CIPFA's Revenue Collection Statistics, relating to the number of summonses issued and liability orders granted highlight the impact that the Welfare Reforms have had on benefit claimants and their ability to meet their council tax liability. An analysis of councils provide a general idea of how dramatically costs raised have been boosted as a consequence of the reforms.

Take Nuneaton and Bedworth for example:

Comparing the 2012/13 and 2013/14 figures indicates that the number of summonses issued in 2013/14, after the reforms, almost doubled (increased by 95%) and liability orders by 56%. Consideration need only be given to the number of summonses issued before and after the reforms because Nuneaton and Bedworth is an authority which front loads all its costs in respect of issuing the summons.

The number of summons issued before the reforms according to CIPFA was 4,606 and for the same period after that were recorded at 8,994. The standard summons costs were £80 therefore the costs raised in the year preceding the reforms were £368,480. The year following, based on the same standard costs the amount raised was £719,520.

Assuming no surplus existed before, which figures suggest is unlikely; much of the additional £0.35 million raised, based on the same unit costs would have to be seen as inappropriate profit. It would have required lowering the standard costs substantially to leave the council in a position that didn’t leave it open to legal challenge over the reasonableness of its charges.

There are even cases where standard costs were increased, coinciding with court applications rocketing.

Kirklees for example raised it summons and liability order charges from £92 and £20 respectively to £95 and £25, whilst its summons and liability orders increased from 20,929 and 15,333 respectively to 31,462 and 24,638. The costs raised after the Reforms were therefore £3,604,840, which was £1.4 million higher than the £2,232,128 raised before the reforms.

[bizzybob]

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

They have a new ready revenue source from the really poor thanks to IDS and Gideon.

[outlawlgo]

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

They have a new ready revenue source from the really poor thanks to IDS and Gideon.

Though the number of court cases have escalated, what seems to be happening with some councils is that summonses are issued with the authority fully knowing that they will be unable to recover the costs from benefit claimants. This results in a ‘bad debt’ element brought about by defendants with no means to pay, being subsidised by those from whom payment is more easily recovered.

Stealth tax – exploiting Magistrates' court fees in Council Tax applications