Council Tax Liability Order Applications Court Costs – Test Case

[outlawlgo]

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

A complaint will be submitted (within the next month) to the Local Government Ombudsman about North East Lincolnshire Council, with it recommended that with the Parliamentary Ombudsman jointly investigates the MoJ's failings under powers granted by 2007 Regulatory Reform legislation.

The papers will be with the LGO once all supporting documents have been rounded up. The complaint in draft form is below:

LGO Complaint

A draft 'Consent Order' intended for the High Court appeal will be included in the supporting documents:

Consent Order

[Crazy council]

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

Hi [MENTION=8136]outlawlgo[/MENTION]

interesting read, i may use part of that. For the thing we chatted about the other week, NEXT WEEK, i delayed because i managed to find some info on 2 of the majistrates. Pop for a cupper if your in town

[outlawlgo]

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

Over 8 months since submitting a complaint to the relevant body in respect of alleging that the Magistrates had perverted the course of justice. It is therefore reasonable to enquire into why there has been no acknowledgement.

From: outlawlgo
To: ....@judiciary.gsi.gov.uk
Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015
Subject: Advisory Committee complaint 2 Sept 2014

Dear Sir/Madam

I would appreciate informing whether the attached complaint will ever be replied to.

As you will notice from the date, over eight months has passed since submitting the complaint (by post) and I am yet to receive acknowledgement.

It is my belief that the Secretary to the Advisory Committee for the Humber – to whom the complaint was addressed – is also the Justices Clerk incolved in the case for which allegations have been made in respect of perverting the course of justice.

It is for this reason I believe an attempt is also being made (as in my High Court application) to prevent this complaint from being addressed.

Yours sincerely

[Crazy council]

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

[MENTION=8136]outlawlgo[/MENTION]

are you free tomorrow, have been meaning to catch up.

i have been dealing with the advisory committee today, there now in doncaster. The local manager has retired in the middle of my allegation... F@#?+g sick of them being allowed to do that, Both allegations of the frauds and how NTS handles the accounts have been laid at there door, and the regulators. I pushed them into make the mother of all mistakes and they have realised.

[outlawlgo]

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

@outlawlgo

are you free tomorrow, have been meaning to catch up.....

Yes, all set for an update

....i have been dealing with the advisory committee today, there now in doncaster. The local manager has retired in the middle of my allegation... F@#?+g sick of them being allowed to do that....

Just off the top of my head, those involved in this case who have retired or are conveniently no longer in the employ of HMCTS since this appeal began include one Clerk to the Justices, one deputy Clerk to the Justices and a bench chair. It seems the MoJ has an unusually high turnover of staff (you can draw your own conclusions).

[Crazy council]

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

Just off the top of my head, those involved in this case who have retired or are conveniently no longer in the employ of HMCTS since this appeal began include one Clerk to the Justices, one deputy Clerk to the Justices and a bench chair. It seems the MoJ has an unusually high turnover of staff (you can draw your own conclusions).

spot on,,, but, i could link 2 of the majistrates to the CPO fraud, and last friday, put the form,al allegations into the court, so have gone to the police as well. properly

and also the allegations around there actions around Cllrs ***** charges.... and his relationship with the judge ( lol, i will tell you this one in person )

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...ing-naked.html
http://www.grimsbytelegraph.co.uk/Co...ail/story.html

That did the trick...

[outlawlgo]

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

A response to yesterday's email states as follows:

From: magistrateshrteam
To: outlawlgo
Sent: Friday, May 15, 2015
Subject: RE: Advisory Committee complaint 2 Sept 2014

Dear outlawlgo

I am sorry that your complaint has taken long to be replied to.

I have been advised by my Policy manager that your email has been forwarded to the Justice Clerk & Advisory Committee Sec for Humber & South Yorks, Alison Watts. This is all we can do from our office, as the subject matter isn't something for us to get involved with.

kind regards

Magistrates HR Team | Judicial Office | 10th Floor I Thomas More Building | Royal Courts of Justice....

They should realise by now that this is not going to go away. The longer they bury their heads, the more serious will be the grounds for misconduct in public office. They have lost any credibility for claiming that the application lacked merit or was not in the public interest as the Reverend's case has proved to the contrary.

[Ref]

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

A coincidence, anything to do with this thread?

Test Case in the High Court on Liability Order Costs

[outlawlgo]

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

Another local authority has left evidence lying around that allows it to be put in the same gallery as Haringey and NELC for making it known that its court costs are manipulated for the purpose of generating income inappropriately and intending them to penalise the taxpayer.

Wycombe District Council (WDC) set out in 2011-12 its plans to raise additional court cost income by keeping what it currently charged the same overall but changing the way its total costs were split between the different recovery stages. The Equality Impact Assessment (EIA) stated that it charged Ł20 for the issue of a summons and Ł60 on obtaining a liability order. The EIA emphasised that only 25% of the overall charge was generated as income if a defendant paid on receipt of a summons whereas if no payment was made the taxpayer would incur Liability Order costs and generate an income of Ł80.

This split in charges changed to Ł30 for a summons and Ł50 for a liability Order which was estimated to generate an additional Ł33,000 annual income. No figures were provided to support that an equal amount of additional expenditure had been incurred by WDC to justify the composition change of the two charges. A short statement setting out its objectives was simply for it ‘to act as a deterrent for taxpayers not to leave payment until late’ as it was ‘unfair to the majority of taxpayers who pay on time and who bear the cost of recovering unpaid taxes’, adding that ‘the additional income....helps to keep overall costs down.

The EIA showed no evidence that WDC had considered the legal implications; for example, raising income inappropriately through court costs or intending them to penalise the taxpayer as the term ‘deterrent’ implied. If WDC was mindful of the judgment in Regina v Highgate Justices ex parte Petrou there would have been concerns raised regarding a risk of being challenged on the grounds that costs should not exceed the proper expenditure incurred and should not be a penalty.

The EIA also clarified that it was the intention to further increase summons costs and reduce Liability Order costs each year for the following 3 years at the rate of Ł10 a year.

The EIA corresponding to this matter but relating to 2013-14 is available on WDC’s website and states that at that time, it charged Ł40 for the issue of a summons and Ł45 on obtaining a liability order. There is no publicly available assessment relating to 2012-13 but it is reasonable to assume that its policy of year on year shifting the composition between the different recovery stages also incorporated an overall increase of Ł5 which was added to the charge for a liability order. It is likely therefore that the assessment (if it exists) would have set out that its split in charges changed to Ł40 for a summons and Ł45 for a liability Order which was estimated to generate an additional ŁXX,000 annual income.

Returning to the 2013-14 assessment, it set out that its split in charges changed to Ł50 for a summons and Ł35 for a liability Order which it estimated would generate an additional Ł40,000 annual income adding that there was no overall increase in the total value of court costs. It did state that it intended to further increase summons costs and reduce Liability Order costs each year at the rate of Ł10 a year up to and including 2014/15, however, the costs currently stand at Ł50 for a summons and Ł35 for a liability Order so it would seem that there might have been opposition to a further shift in the split between the different recovery stages.

Over the period detailed, WDC has shifted the split between the two stages so that the summons charge, which represented only 25% of the overall costs, finished up making up almost 60% of the total. The additional income generated due to shifting the composition of the two stages is more significant if it is taken into account that in 2009-10, WDC levied no charge on the issue of a summons and costs were only applied for on making an application for a liability order. In that year, only those taxpayers who had not paid their liability by the hearing date incurred costs which were then Ł76.

There is no evidence that the policy had taken into account the legislative restrictions, though WDC did, in addition to deterring late payment and raising income, justify the decision by the opportunity it provided to gain favour with the majority of its ‘customers’ who were not affected by recovery. The inference was that WDC would be advantaged by the divisive effect that was inevitable from increasing the up front charges of recovery so that those ‘customers’ who pay on time would benefit from an overall reduction in the cost of the service. The relevant parts of the EIA (2013-14) giving a sense of this are provided as follows:

“....88% of customers pay their Council Tax before court proceedings commence. The cost of recovering unpaid council tax falls on all taxpayers. Increasing the up front charges on summonses acts as an added incentive for customers to pay on time. It can be assumed that those customers who pay on time would prefer the increase in summons costs as it reduces the overall cost of the service to all customers.

In reality only 12% of customers are affected by the change, and a further 1% of those already reach Liability Order stage, so only 11% customers are likely to be affected and have cause for complaint. As such the savings to the majority far outweigh the cost increase of the few...”
.................
“It is envisaged that this policy change, which aims to deter late payment, will work to improve relations between WDC and all taxpayers who pay on time....by reducing the amount spent by WDC on recovering the unpaid taxes of a minority. The additional annual income (estimated at Ł40,000) will help to keep overall costs down. The intention is to further increase Summons costs & reduce Liability Order costs...in 2014/15 to more accurately reflect the actual costs of recovery at each stage. In cases of financial hardship, particularly customers with a low income existing guidelines allows for costs to be withdrawn on a case by case basis so allowing WDC to ensure customers are treated equitably and fairly.”
.................
“The combined summons and liability order costs are unchanged. This change will only impact on those customers who leave payment until a summons is issued....

In overall terms this change will benefit all council tax payers as it will generate additional income for the service, contributing to an overall reduction in costs that is passed on to all council tax payers who fund recovery action through the council tax they pay.”

It is implied that the greater expenditure incurred by WDC arises at the summons stage in support of its drive to shift greater weight in respect of the summons costs. However, it has been confirmed by Chiltern District Council that the majority of costs it incurs arise from the court hearing to obtain the order and the additional work required to secure payment thereafter.

Though logically, expenditure would vary in proportion to the authority’s size and may be affected by economies of scale, that would have no bearing on where in the process it is incurred and it would be expected that one authority would incur recovery expenditure in much the same way as another.

[outlawlgo]

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

An email to the Head of the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office:

From: outlawlgo
To: judy.anckorn@jcio.gsi.gov.uk
Sent: June 25, 2015
Subject: Fw: Advisory Committee complaint 2 Sept 2014

Dear Ms Anckorn

Re: Advisory Committee complaint 2 Sept 2014

I have concerns that my complaint (attached) is deliberately being ignored because the Advisory Committee Secretary, to whom the complaint is addressed, is also the Justices Clerk involved in the case for which allegations have been made in respect of perverting the course of justice.

I have made an attempt, as the correspondence chain verifies, to submit the complaint through another channel because of the conflict of interest. As is also evident, the email was simply forwarded to the Advisory Committee Secretary, from whom there has been no reply (and unlikely to be).

I might add that recently a case concerning matters not dissimilar to the issues raised in my case stated appeal (November 2012) to the High Court has resulted in successful appeal and judgment praising the appellant and Pro Bono legal reps for bringing the case before the court. Mrs Justice Andrews described the appeal, [2015] EWHC 1252 (Admin), as raising 'issues of significant public interest to both council tax payers and local authorities'.

I believe the costs claimed against the defendant in the case referred to was in the sum of Ł33,000 and wonder if the effort put into preventing my case progressing, as detailed in my complaint to the Advisory Committee, was to prevent a similar outcome.

Will you please ensure that my complaint is addressed.

Yours sincerely

From: magistrateshrteam
To: outlawlgo
Sent: Friday, May 15, 2015
Subject: RE: Advisory Committee complaint 2 Sept 2014

Dear outlawlgo

I am sorry that your complaint has taken long to be replied to.

I have been advised by my Policy manager that your email has been forwarded to the Justice Clerk & Advisory Committee Sec for Humber & South Yorks, Alison Watts. This is all we can do from our office, as the subject matter isn't something for us to get involved with.

kind regards

Magistrates HR Team | Judicial Office | 10th Floor I Thomas More Building | Royal Courts of Justice....

From: outlawlgo
To: ....@judiciary.gsi.gov.uk
Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015
Subject: Advisory Committee complaint 2 Sept 2014

Dear Sir/Madam

I would appreciate informing whether the attached complaint will ever be replied to.

As you will notice from the date, over eight months has passed since submitting the complaint (by post) and I am yet to receive acknowledgement.

It is my belief that the Secretary to the Advisory Committee for the Humber – to whom the complaint was addressed – is also the Justices Clerk incolved in the case for which allegations have been made in respect of perverting the course of justice.

It is for this reason I believe an attempt is also being made (as in my High Court application) to prevent this complaint from being addressed.

Yours sincerely

[countgallo]

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

I've read the posts with interest.
I note that in all cases many fail to realise the simple question of being dealt with as an individual and not some 'person' on a list of others accused of owing money.

let's work by example. assume you've received 2 letters from the council, a reminder to pay the CTax and a 2nd letter saying you are summoned to appear before some court.

the 2nd summons letter is based on a statute and you have forfeited the right to pay by installments AND as an 'additional' penalty must pay additional costs to the billing authority [council] for their time and effort applying to a court asking if you are actually liable to pay the alleged debt?

the legislation deems you're guilty even before you've appeared at any administrative court hearing which is contrary to common law. Furthermore, the creditor (the council in this case) have paid the clerk to the court and any stipendiary Magistrates, leaving you with few human rights to a fair hearing/trial.

Due to the disgraceful government austerity measures, councils are using any methods they can to plug the shortfall. Council tax enforcement fees are simply an extortionate way of extracting money from the poor to pay for the shortfall.

The council simply filter the previous months Council Tax defaulters in an excel spreadsheet, attach the list and send it to the clerk to the court, who then writes a line of text of agreement at the bottom of the email and then posts it back to the council. THe council then 'inserts' an electronic copy of the clerks signature at the letterhead.

The magistrates don't even see the list of defaulters and its the clerk (or assistant clerk) who makes the decision to grant liability (in most cases the council do not get authorisation to serve the pre-requisite summons, they just insert the facsimile signature then unlawfully send out the summons).

You have every right to be treated as an individual and not dealt with under the same accusation as a thousand others on a list of liabilities. You are a unique human being and your voice must be heard.

[FlamingParrot]

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

let's work by example. assume you've received 2 letters from the council, a reminder to pay the CTax and a 2nd letter saying you are summoned to appear before some court.
the 2nd summons letter is based on a statute and you have forfeited the right to pay by installments AND as an 'additional' penalty must pay additional costs to the billing authority [council] for their time and effort applying to a court asking if you are actually liable to pay the alleged debt?

the legislation deems you're guilty even before you've appeared at any administrative court hearing which is contrary to common law. Furthermore, the creditor (the council in this case) have paid the clerk to the court and any stipendiary Magistrates, leaving you with few human rights to a fair hearing/trial.

Due to the disgraceful government austerity measures, councils are using any methods they can to plug the shortfall. Council tax enforcement fees are simply an extortionate way of extracting money from the poor to pay for the shortfall.

It's often possible to speak to the council after you've received the two letters above, I did so with two different local authorities and they were agreeable to re-instate the instalment order and cancel the summons, provided I paid the arrears, of course. Actually in the second instance there were no arrears as such, what happened was that the payments were being made a few days after they were due. They explained that the process was entirely automated and triggered by events such as a payment not being made when due, which would trigger one reminder. That would be recorded on the system and the next time another payment was missed (even if it was made later), it triggered the summons letter. The instances I'm referring to happened 7 and 10 years ago respectively, long before the infamous austerity measures. As far as I know, the system has always worked in much the same way, even during the Labour government.

I'm also against austerity but I don't think the two are linked.

[outlawlgo]

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

.... Actually in the second instance there were no arrears as such, what happened was that the payments were being made a few days after they were due. They explained that the process was entirely automated and triggered by events such as a payment not being made when due, which would trigger one reminder. That would be recorded on the system and the next time another payment was missed (even if it was made later), it triggered the summons letter. The instances I'm referring to happened 7 and 10 years ago respectively, long before the infamous austerity measures. As far as I know, the system has always worked in much the same way, even during the Labour government.....

The Recovery Policy (below) seems to back up what you say at paragraph 5.1:

"The Policy"

Due to the number of accounts administered by the Revenue Service it has been decided that reminders will not be checked individually before they are issued. Parameters are agreed in advance by the Senior Managers and reminders are issued on this basis. The parameters consist of number of days behind and the monetary minimum value.

Also, page 176 to 178 of Rochford District Council's Revenues & Benefits Policy Manual gives a pretty good insight to how the automated council tax processing systems operates and the parameters pre-set.

[Ref]

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

I've read the posts with interest.
I note that in all cases many fail to realise the simple question of being dealt with as an individual and not some 'person' on a list of others accused of owing money....

I agree pretty much with you say. What I'd add is regarding being an individual as opposed to a small element of the bulk application (entry on the database submitted to the clerk) that the Council Tax Regulations specifically provide for the complaint to be considered individually if the defendant wishes to challenge the application, say perhaps on the grounds of unreasonable costs.

This matter is emphasised in the government guidance that came out a couple of years ago but not with any reference to the Regulations, consequently local authorities dismissed it as simply guidance to ignore, however, the judgment in the Reverends judicial review, which I gather you've read makes more of it than simply guidance.

Anyway, paragraph 43 to 49 of this document (an intended complaint to the LGO/Parliamentary Ombudsman) goes into more detail as to why the regs do provide for an individual's case to be considered.

[outlawlgo]

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

A response from Head of the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office

From: Anckorn, Judy
To: outlawlgo
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2015
Subject: FW: Advisory Committee complaint 2 Sept 2014

Dear Mr outlawlgo,

I have e-mailed Ms Watts today to ask when you might receive a reply, however, she is away currently away from the office. I hope she will contact you directly. If however, you remain dissatisfied with the way in which the advisory committee has handled your complaint, you may complain to the Judicial Appointment and Conduct Ombudsman; you may do so by e-mailing headofoffice@jaco.gsi.gov.uk further information about the Ombudsman’s remit may be found at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/organi...duct-ombudsman

I hope this is of assistance to you.

Yours sincerely

Judy Anckorn I Head of the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office, Press and Communications I 81 - 82 Queens Building I Royal Courts of Justice I Strand I London WC2A 2LL I Phone: 020 7073 4719 I http://judicialconduct.judiciary.gov.uk/