Council Tax Liability Order Applications Court Costs – Test Case

[outlawlgo]

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

• Revenue Collection Statistics 2001-02
• 2002-03
• 2003-04
• 2004-05
• 2005-06
• 2006-07
• 2007-08
• 2008-09
• 2009-10
• 2010-11
• 2011-12 – Draft Statistics

Some of the figures are missing to varying degrees depending on the authority and year. I wonder if there's a link between missing data and councils outsourcing collections to companies like Capita.

[A54]

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

On the face of it, the 3 months time limit is 'up' if the cause of complaint is the liability order being granted (2nd November 2012). However, if the cause of complaint is the Magistrates refusal to state the case, the clock hasn't started ticking (and in all probability never will) as they have not technically refused. This is the sticking point as requiring recognizance conditioned to prosecute the appeal, does not constitute a refusal to state a case.

I believe that unless the Magistrates state the case within 21 days from your application to them, it counts as a refusal no matter what the reason is?

I did explain the £500 requirement to my barrister (who's authored a few books and guides on council tax), I'm pretty sure he would not have recommended the judicial review route if the recognizance conditioned to prosecute the appeal was a showstopper. Costs nothing to apply if you qualified for remission on your case stated application so might be worth a try.

Please do post the links you have for the other years. At first glance it looks as if the figures quoted for the number of summonses issued by Redbridge in 2009/10 are way too low. I have copies of the records for 2 summons hearings applications in 2009 that show over 4000 summonses were obtained just for these 2 hearings, while the figures quoted by CIPFA are just 17,477 for the whole year.

The figures quoted for the summons costs raised in 2009 are £1,161000, yet the records I have show that £358,720 was raised in just 2 hearings. I doubt that just under a third of the whole year's figure was obtained in just 2 hearings?

I also have the records relating to one summons hearing in 2010 where over 5,000 summonses were granted, that's a whopping £475,000 in costs in one day.

Would be useful to see the legal definition for what constitutes as 'costs' in making an application for a summons. I know that if it was Joe average applying for a summons, he'd be lucky to get £50 in costs.

[outlawlgo]

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

I have links to other years if your interested. These are council's revenue statistics submitted to CIPFA. This one relates to "2009-10".

If you click on "Main Statistics" tab at the bottom; row 47, columns 44 and 45 for example, disclose the number of summons issued and liability orders granted in respect of that year.

Interesting to see on your link that the council specified to the court that it should award costs of £95 per application – not the other way round.

EDIT:

....I spoke with my lawyer about the Court's refusal to state their case unless you pay £500, he tells me the way around this is to apply for judicial review on the grounds the magistrates court are refusing to state the case and to ask for the 2 applications to be 'joined', 1 for refusing to state the case and 2 the matter regarding the amount of costs the court agreed are reasonably incurred in applying for a summons. Both can be heard at the same time in the high court.

I'm sure you are aware of the time limits for applying for judicial review (3 months from the occurrence of the cause of complaint)...

This is something I'm querying with the Clerk to the Justices. The position is, as far as the Magistrates are saying, that the £500 would be subject to forfeiture only upon failure to prosecute the appeal without delay once the case has been delivered. However, this is at odds with Section 114 of the Magistrates Court Act which draws a distinction between criminal and non-criminal matters where this appears relevant only to a criminal matter. In non-criminal matters “a justices' clerk shall not be required to deliver the case to the applicant until the applicant has paid the fees payable for the case and for the recognizances to the designated officer for the court.”

With regards judicial review, on the face of it the 3 months time limit is 'up' if the cause of complaint is the liability order being granted (2nd November 2012). However, if the cause of complaint is the Magistrates refusal to state the case, the clock hasn't started ticking (and in all probability never will) as they have not technically refused. This is the sticking point as requiring recognizance conditioned to prosecute the appeal, does not constitute a refusal to state a case.

....The other thing that may be worth trying is approaching the press with your case file, magistrates and LA's behave a little better when there's a reporter in the room I'm told and your case can/should be of public interest and therefore newsworthy. Know any reporters?

I have contacts with some broadsheets, which have incidentally covered quite extensively issues surrounding council tax enforcement, particularly the income councils receive from liability orders applications and that extorted by councils bailiff contractors. I could see how they're fixed.

[A54]

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

Attachments failed first time, second attempt...

[A54]

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

The sums are unbelievable – £2.5K for a couple of hours in your example – these cannot be reasonable costs.

In my case the amount 'earned' by the LA in 2 hours is £250 000.00 PLUS, not £2.5k.

I've attached 2 documents that were submitted as evidence against me in court, I assume that the courts are an office of public records therefore these documents are not privileged or confidential.

The first document shows that on 5 January 2009 Redbridge council claimed £95 as reasonable costs for each summons they applied for. Redbridge Magistrates' Court (now known as Barkingside Magistrates' Court) awarded this as costs per summons. Its worth noting that the alleged costs of each summons has risen significantly in 2012/3.

The second document (IFAS input form) is Redbridge Magistrates' Court's form that shows 2693 summonses were applied for that day and the court were paid £8889 - proving the summonses were granted.

Some quick maths show:

2693 summonses granted at £95 = £281,485 awarded in costs

Deduct the £8889 paid in court fees leaves a final sum of £272,596.00

To be totally neutral, it is fair to say that the council will not be able to recover the whole amount, some summonses may be withdrawn, some residents could have absconded, etc.

However, as you have already shown in this thread, the law allows only for reasonable costs incurred in the application for summonses and the magistrate involved must be satisfied that the costs are in fact reasonable and incurred, in other words he has a judicial duty to fairly assess and be happy that the costs awarded satisfy this legal requirement.

I think the fairy godmother would have a tough time trying to justify how these costs were incurred in a bulk application that usually takes no longer than if one single summons was applied for.

In other words, your application to make the magistrate state his case as to how he concluded that the costs awarded against you were reasonable could 'incriminate' him/her and show a dereliction of duty, so you can imagine the court's reluctance or refusal to do so.

Now if we look at the wider picture (which I'm sure you already have), in the real example quoted above, up to 2693 cases could be handed over to bailiffs who would add their own costs.

In Redbridge it looks as if bulk summons hearings are heard twice a week, when I get the chance to go through the other three sets of documents I have in my possession I should be able to deduce a fairly accurate average of the councils 'earnings' through such proceedings but at the moment I would guess that the council profits from the issue of summonses by around £20 to £30 million per year by issuing summonses to around 250,000 residents. Remember at this stage these figures are very rough estimates that need verifying.

It is mind blowing when you consider that this is everyday practice for most if not all LA's up and down the country, the yearly turnover in such cases must hit the £billion mark or more and this is just for costs at the summons stage.

One other result which needs further investigation is that Redbridge council's efficiency score is significantly improved as a result because the alleged debt claimed against each debtor is written off and does not appear in their yearly accounts as 'unrecovered' albeit that this may only happen once the council obtained liability orders following the summonses. The end result could be that they receive more funds from central government for scoring higher in efficiency.

The other point worth mentioning is that most victims quoted in the figures above are usually in the low earners bracket and unable to present any defence even if they have valid reasons due to lack of resources, time, and in the absence of legal aid the expertise required to make judicial representations.

In other words the council(s) appear to be deliberately preying on the poorest of its residents who do not have a voice and the few that do are faced with an uphill battle against magistrates courts' that seemingly have a vested interest to continue the exploitation.

I spoke with my lawyer about the Court's refusal to state their case unless you pay £500, he tells me the way around this is to apply for judicial review on the grounds the magistrates court are refusing to state the case and to ask for the 2 applications to be 'joined', 1 for refusing to state the case and 2 the matter regarding the amount of costs the court agreed are reasonably incurred in applying for a summons. Both can be heard at the same time in the high court.

I'm sure you are aware of the time limits for applying for judicial review (3 months from the occurrence of the cause of complaint).

The other thing that may be worth trying is approaching the press with your case file, magistrates and LA's behave a little better when there's a reporter in the room I'm told and your case can/should be of public interest and therefore newsworthy. Know any reporters?

[outlawlgo]

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

Thanks for your input A54. I am taking on board what you're saying.

The next step, as you suggest, would be to apply for an order under the direction of the Attorney General. On a successful outcome in the High Court, I guess the government's potential £millions lost each year from Council Tax summons penalties (proceeds from lower incomed individuals), would have to be replaced from another source. Maybe a minute fraction of banker's bonuses would take care of the shortfall. Perhaps that could be the solution to the potential string of bankrupt local authorities.

Should local authorities be relieved of the duty of a pursuer of debt, they could then resume their original role which is to protect the well-being of its citizens.

The sums are unbelievable – £2.5K* for a couple of hours in your example – these cannot be reasonable costs. Additional to NELC documents, I have information from a number of other councils, that to any logically thinking person, would represent concrete evidence that no lawful process is undertaken in obtaining an award of costs in the Magistrates court.

Another thread on this forum dealing with concessions given, in exchange for Direct Debit take-up, poses some difficult questions for the authority that waived summons costs in respect of over 20,000 accounts since 2008. The council's comments explaining this, inadvertently disclosed that the costs it imposed bore no relation to reasonably incurred expenditure but a figure arbitrarily plucked from the air.

[A54]

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

My understanding of the rules are that the magistrates must state the case within 21 days, it would be unusual for there to be no time limit so I would still be tempted to apply to the high court for an order to make them state the case within a specific timeframe (without being too critical of the magistrates court).

This would serve a number of purposes, mainly that you are still waiting for a response from the magistrates' court and secondly to avoid falling foul of any time limits that may result in the case being thrown out of the high court. As a litigant in person you may be allowed a little leeway.

Please avoid using words like lying, fraud, extortion etc. in any letter you send or application you make, I learned from my barrister that doing so just raises the standard of proof required and makes proving your case that much harder. A lie can be described as an 'inaccuracy', fraud may be 'a misinterpretation of the rules', extortion may be 'alleging a debt that is not due or disputed'. Doing so at least encourages the reader/judge to continue reading with an open mind where hopefully they will see the true picture.


"It makes me wonder if the respective parties are aware of this thread."

Do not be surprised if they are monitoring this thread (or even you), I found in my case, it appeared that the LA became aware of an incriminating point that was rapidly covered for (or attempted) shortly after I disclosed it in a post here.

A word of caution, you are aware that should you win in the high court you could well end up making practically every dishonest LA in the land bankrupt, I'm not joking. Be careful.

In my case I managed to get the LA to disclose documents (court receipts, postage details etc.) that show just how much they gained from one magistrates court session where complaints were laid in bulk, on 5 January 2009 the LA claimed £95 per summons issued, they applied for 2963 summonses and allegedly sent out 2815 of them on that day, earning £267,425. They paid the court £8,889 so earned a net profit of £258,536. Not bad for a couple of hours in court. My LA holds at least 2 such hearings per week.

The LA's are a cancer of society that is attacking the less able residents who elected it to serve them.

Almost got in a rant....

Keep us posted but reserve any sensitive details for PM's.

[outlawlgo]

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

Hi Outlawlgo,

do you have any impending time limits regarding your high court appeal?

I mentioned this case to my 'barrister' who's a specialist in this field (deals mostly with social injustice inflicted by local authorities, some of the cases he deals with are both shocking and disturbing), he tells me that the £500 requirement is a common demand but there's a way around it, I'll find out more when I talk to him next and will let you know.

A good point!

Pending the outcome of the issue raised in the following paragraph, my understanding is that 'until' the Justices make a decision to state a case, the procedure is on hold. At the stage, if and when they decide, the Clerk to the Justices has 21 days to serve a draft case on each party.

Pending enquiries

The current Criminal Procedure Rules (in force 1 October 2012) are unclear whether a time limit applies for the Justices' Clerk to draft a case. However, 64.2 of the 2011 rules specifies that a draft case shall be sent to all parties within 21 days after receipt of an application.

If this is still the case under the current 'rules' (21 days) then the court would have breached this weeks ago.

This, along with other issues, is what I'm querying with the court.

You nailed it in one.

Maybe best to send any correspondence by recorded delivery from now on. That said, my advice is to focus on the high court appeal, perhaps make an additional application to the high court stating that the magistrates have refused to state their case and that you are contesting a point in law that is of public interest (this further justifies your case for remission of all fees), the high court has the power to order them to state their case, perhaps ask for that particular order?

The justices can refuse to state a case under section 111(5) of the MCA 1980, but technically they haven't done that. From researching this, requiring recognizance conditioned to prosecute the appeal, does not it seem, constitute a refusal to state a case.

If they do refuse however, they'd be obliged, if requested, to issue a certificate stating the refusal of the application:

(5) If the justices are of opinion that an application under this section is frivolous, they may refuse to state a case, and, if the applicant so requires, shall give him a certificate stating that the application has been refused; but the justices shall not refuse to state a case if the application is made by or under the direction of the Attorney General

You are of course spot on with your remark. I'll make a point of expressing that this is in the public interest. I am after all, not the only one incurring financial penalties because of the particular point in law being brought into question – there are millions of others.

Following on from your suggestion that the high court may order them to state the case should they refuse. I notice this is provided for in section 111(6) of the Act:

(6) Where justices refuse to state a case, the High Court may, on the application of the person who applied for the case to be stated, make an order of mandamus requiring the justices to state a case.

Shortly after posting on this thread yesterday about the lack of response, I received an email from the legal admin leader from the court stating the correspondence is receiving attention from the Clerk to the justices. However, nobody from the council have responded to the letter I sent 14 Feb.

It makes me wonder if the respective parties are aware of this thread. I know NELC at least misuse taxpayer's money by having staff monitor the internet when assuming the role of private investigator. This they have admitted to me in writing.

I consider it of utmost importance when dealing with organisations such as local authorities, HMCTS, LGO, police etc. etc., to have a record of correspondence between each party somewhere online which is available for public scrutiny.

These organisations rely heavily on the fact malpractice, negligence etc. can be kept from the public. When they threaten, like NELC has done, to influence all members of staff across the council not to respond to complaints about fraud, then you really need to make sure the public know about this. Or, ironically, they threaten you with the police after you've insisted they take seriously allegations about their bailiff contractor attempting to defraud hundreds of pounds from you.

[A54]

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

There's been no response from either the council or Magistrates' court, despite subsequent requests for acknowledgement of correspondence.

What we have is a one way justice system. Magistrates Courts seem only concerned with their highly profitable 'conveyer style' rubber stamping operations. These Mickey Mouse courts are merely corrupt money making factories. Faced with a one off case – likely to pin-point systematic corruption within the government – these corrupt red necked Magistrates think simply ignoring the issue will make it go away.

The names of the Magistrates sitting on the bench at the hearing have been obtained, so it's timely that an enquiry is made to the Office for Judicial Complaints, along with another to HMCTS about the dubious proceedings at the liability order hearing.

You nailed it in one.

Maybe best to send any correspondence by recorded delivery from now on. That said, my advice is to focus on the high court appeal, perhaps make an additional application to the high court stating that the magistrates have refused to state their case and that you are contesting a point in law that is of public interest (this further justifies your case for remission of all fees), the high court has the power to order them to state their case, perhaps ask for that particular order?

[A54]

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

Hi Outlawlgo,

do you have any impending time limits regarding your high court appeal?

I mentioned this case to my 'barrister' who's a specialist in this field (deals mostly with social injustice inflicted by local authorities, some of the cases he deals with are both shocking and disturbing), he tells me that the £500 requirement is a common demand but there's a way around it, I'll find out more when I talk to him next and will let you know.

[outlawlgo]

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

There's been no response from either the council or Magistrates' court, despite subsequent requests for acknowledgement of correspondence.

What we have is a one way justice system. Magistrates Courts seem only concerned with their highly profitable 'conveyer style' rubber stamping operations. These Mickey Mouse courts are merely corrupt money making factories. Faced with a one off case – likely to pin-point systematic corruption within the government – these corrupt red necked Magistrates think simply ignoring the issue will make it go away.

The names of the Magistrates sitting on the bench at the hearing have been obtained, so it's timely that an enquiry is made to the Office for Judicial Complaints, along with another to HMCTS about the dubious proceedings at the liability order hearing.

[outlawlgo]

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

....If you threatened legal action and if they took you seriously they might consider your issues. Otherwise you would be better of just ringing up and begging them to waive the costs, this is more likely to succeed especially if you are on benefits etc.

Both the court and local authority have been served notice for the justices' Clerk to state a case for an appeal to the High Court.

I'm not on benefits, although I qualify for full remission of the Magistrates' court fees. The Magistrates will compose the initial draft only on condition I enter into recognizance to the sum of £500 to prosecute without delay. This sum is being queried on the grounds it effectively denies me access to justice as I've already been deemed eligible for fee remission.

[three rivers of corruption]

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

Your initial inclination is correct. There is no point making your legal case direct to the council. They have allready indicated their disreguard of the legality of things. They will not be swayed.
If you threatened legal action and if they took you seriously they might consider your issues. Otherwise you would be better of just ringing up and begging them to waive the costs, this is more likely to succeed especially if you are on benefits etc.

[outlawlgo]

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

The response from the Council today was no surprise. I anticipated they'd consider themselves covered by the law and correctly obtained the liability order.

That however was not the point; it was the fact they could not substantiate their claims that the costs incurred were reasonable. It would be futile dealing with the council any more, unless of course it decided to instruct its bailiff contractor Rossendales – at which point it would not only be the council involved but the police as well.

OK, so I decided it wasn't worth contacting the council again. I still think the exercise is pointless but a valid argument should at least be put to the council in response to its claim that the liability order was correctly obtained.

North East Lincolnshire Council
Civic Offices Knoll Street
Cleethorpes
North East Lincolnshire
DN35 8LN

Ref: NG/CTR/12912

14 February 2013

Dear Ms .....

Re: Application to Magistrates’ Court to Quash Liability Order – Acc xxxx.....

Thank you for your 8 February 2013 letter clarifying your position with regards quashing the liability order. Although you state that the liability order was correctly obtained, NELC has provided no supporting evidence.

According to S.I. 1992/613, NELC should have ceased court action on 17 October 2012, the point at which I paid the aggregate of the sum outstanding and an amount equal to the costs reasonably incurred by the authority.

Application for liability order

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.

This is reason enough to satisfy the council and Magistrates’ court that the liability order was obtained incorrectly, but to reinforce this I refer you to my letters 17 and 18 September 2012, highlighting the distinction between reasonably incurred costs in connection with the summons and those for obtaining the order.

The summons should not, but does include liability order costs – expenditure which has not been incurred at the summons stage. This is not in accordance with regulation 34 which states these are imposed once a liability order has been obtained.

According to NELC it makes a loss in liability order applications, i.e., its costs revenue is less than the incurred expenditure in sending summonses (the council’s unfounded claim). It would appear then if that is the case thousands of pounds each year could be saved in recovery costs through a basic process of monitoring cases progressed to recovery.

It seems the council has this flexibility as regulation 34 of S.I. 1992/613 states that the authority has no legal obligation to bring about court proceedings only that it may apply to a Magistrates’ court.

Application for liability order

34.—(1) If an amount which has fallen due under regulation 23(3) or (4) is wholly or partly unpaid, or (in a case where a final notice is required under regulation 33) the amount stated in the final notice is wholly or partly unpaid at the expiry of the period of 7 days beginning with the day on which the notice was issued, the billing authority may, in accordance with paragraph (2), apply to a magistrates' court for an order against the person by whom it is payable

The council would substantially reduce the numbers taken to court if it followed some of its own policies detailed in its “Debt Recovery Strategy”. For example, under section 5, “Principles of Enforcement” it states at 5.2 that the potential loss of income should be weighed up against the cost of enforcement:

5.2 Proportional - a balance will be struck between the potential loss of income to the Council and the costs of the enforcement action.

Perhaps relevant to thousands of cases being unnecessarily processed through the court each year are those who miss deadlines with instalments and have been subjected to this because of the need to automate this kind of operation.

Cases for which enforcement is unnecessary could easily be identified. For example, payments registering on a persons account, albeit subsequent to a final notice, would be a good indication that enforcement would achieve nothing other than adding to the householder’s probable cash flow problem. This, checked against the account payer’s payment history may justify a decision against taking legal action and is also a consideration detailed at item 5.3 of the council’s “Debt Recovery Strategy”.

Yours sincerely

[A54]

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

I see your point, but there is a bit of a difference. We're talking about local authorities, courts etc., in a position of responsibility, hold power and paid for by the taxpayer. You would therefore hope they wouldn't be turning this power and influence into a racket which extorts money from those who feed them – usually the less well off.

This is the outrage, everyone expects LA's and especially the Courts to be righteous and upstanding with total transparency, instead they regularly target and inflict unbearable injustice, often on the most vulnerable of its residents.