Council Tax Liability Order Applications Court Costs – Test Case

[enquirer]

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

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

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

[outlawlgo]

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

That the bench failed to consider the evidence is obvious, so why not make a complaint against the magistrates themselves?

Will look into that. However, the Justices' Clerk stated that a liability order can only be challenged by an appeal to the High Court by way of a case stated on a point of law, or a judicial review (also in the High Court).

From experience I discovered a complaint made to HMCTS will not consider a judicial decision. To add to that, the Parliamentary Ombudsman that has responsibility for complaints made about HMCTS complaint's procedure is equally useless.

[enquirer]

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

That the bench failed to consider the evidence is obvious, so why not make a complaint against the magistrates themselves?

[outlawlgo]

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

The financial implications of appealing judicial decisions was put to Chris Grayling, Secretary of State for Justice, in front of a Commons Select Committee on the 28 November 2012.

An extract of the uncorrected transcript more than hints that a system accessible only to those with money will be pushed even further from the reach of the man on the street.

Justice, quite clearly then, is a privilege of those fortunate to have money to access it.

Mr Llwyd: Perhaps I may ask a question as a not so young barrister from a minority background.

Chair: The Bar is full of Welsh speakers, Mr Llwyd.

Q40 Mr Llwyd: It is indeed-perhaps the majority. Who knows? May I ask you about the public engagement exercise with regard to possible changes in judicial review? You said in your written statement on the 19th of this month that judicial review is a critical means of holding the Executive to account. Many people believe, as I do, that it is the only means by which a citizen can challenge an administrative decision that has been made unreasonably. It is in many ways vital to a healthy democracy. Are the changes to the exercise of the function of judicial review going to be limited, for example, to planning or infrastructure cases, or is it across the board?

Chris Grayling: It is across the board. Judicial review is a very important process. It is right and proper that people should be able to challenge the decisions of public bodies. It is also the case that judicial review is now increasingly used as a public relations exercise rather than a serious legal process, and I don’t think that is acceptable. Judicial review is also becoming a process that just goes on and on, so people keep on coming back. I think tighter rules should be built around when how the judicial review process can be used so that we do not deny people access to justice and the right to challenge but we make it much more difficult for the system to be used in a way that is not simply about challenging an incorrect decision. The early proposals we are bringing forward involve, first, a limit to the amount of time that people can wait before they start judicial review proceedings.

Q41 Mr Llwyd: That already exists.

Chris Grayling: We are proposing tighter time limits on that. Secondly, there will be a limit to oral appeals; thirdly, there will be an increased fee for accessing the judicial review system, but we also want to consult more widely about other changes we can make. On this, we think there is common agreement. There is frustration in the judiciary and among public bodies about how extensively it is used. When judicial review was introduced in the 1970s there were a few hundred cases a year; now there are thousands and thousands. I want to get judicial review back to what it should be, which is an opportunity for somebody with a genuine grievance where a decision has been wrongly taken by a public body to challenge it.

Q42 Mr Llwyd: But in that scenario, for example, where there is a genuine challenge by an individual, would it not be unfortunate if you were to put up fees to a very high level and that individual found he or she could not afford to pay them?

Chris Grayling: In all parts of our justice system-for example, the ability to access the small claims court-a fee is payable to make sure that the cases brought forward are not simply trivial. I don’t think it is inappropriate to do that with judicial review where potentially you are taking up significant amounts of judge and court time. I want judicial reviews to be taken in matters of genuine, legitimate interest. It is my view that often the judicial review process is used for PR purposes rather than genuine legal ones.

[outlawlgo]

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

Anyone falling under the Administration(mal) of Portsmouth City Council, would seem to be able to challenge their authority on court costs in certain circumstances.

They seem to be admitting inappropriate charges are imposed for the summons:

Some of the elements included when establishing the costs are:- postage, printing charges, computer time, staff time and staff time involved in the follow up after summonses are issued.

Looking at the relevant regulations, if the outstanding council tax is paid on receipt of the summons (before the hearing), then costs should be imposed only in respect of those incurred up to the payment.

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.

[outlawlgo]

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

Some more evidence that council's are running the show:

Eastleigh Borough Council's Review of Court Costs

Proposals for Future Charges

8. Previously any increases in costs charged by the Council needed the approval of the Clerk to the Magistrates Court to ensure that the costs being levied were reasonable.

9. After contacting the Clerks to the Magistrates’ Court they have now confirmed that it is for the Council to decide on an appropriate level of fees in order to cover their costs and no approval is required from them.

10. It is now proposed that the Council increases its charges and changes its method of charging to maximise income and thus avoid the cost of taking recovery action being passed onto the majority of other Council Tax payers who pay on time.

11. It is therefore recommended that from 1st October 2010 the Council increases its fees to £95 at the summons stage of the proceedings with no additional fee being levied when the liability order is obtained.

[miliitant]

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

And we are all behind you 100%

[alham]

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

You've got some cahoneys.

[outlawlgo]

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

Both the Council and Magistrates' Court have been served the application for the Magistrates' Court to state a case for an appeal to the high court. This has been done within the given 21 day limit. The Magistrates Court, if in agreement, are required to prepare the first draft of the 'Stated Case' within a specified 21 days. Any representations must be made within 21 days of receipt of the draft.

The application form is attached but basically contains the following:

1) Decision under appeal. Give brief details of the decision about which you want to appeal to the High Court (including the date of that decision).

The Magistrates sitting at the Grimsby Magistrates Court on the 2nd November 2012 granted a liability order, brought about by North East Lincolnshire Council. The matter concerned Council Tax and the liability order was made for a proportion (£60) of the Council’s £70 summons costs. The level of costs were disputed at the hearing as unreasonable.

2) Question(s) for the High Court. What question(s) of law or jurisdiction do you want the court to state for the opinion of the High Court?

The questions focus on two principle points of law with regards regulation 34 of the Council Tax regulations (SI 1992/613).

Those points being, whether

i) costs being disputed as unreasonable should have been awarded by the court without evidence from the council to support them.

ii) costs specifically incurred by the council for obtaining the liability order should have been charged at the summons issuing stage.

3) Grounds of appeal. Explain briefly why you think the decision against which you want to appeal was wrong, and how that decision depended on the question(s) specified in box 2 above.

i) The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 provide at regulation 34 for a billing authority to recover its reasonably incurred costs in connection with liability order applications. The costs were disputed on the grounds that hundreds of thousands of pounds awarded would not be reasonable in respect of a single “bulk” liability order, especially considering the process is largely automated. Neither can costs be quantified in advance as they are split between however many defendants are summonsed to the court.

The council’s representative offered no evidence to support its costs claim and stated that the council had never been required to do so. Consequently, the authority could not justify their incurred expenditure.

General costs were offered verbally by the prosecuting council, including Council Tax collection and recovery, IT systems, employment of staff and HMCTS for the use of their facilities. It was argued costs were reasonable by commenting that they were lower than national averages for unitary authorities.

It does not specify in SI 1992/613 that defendants should subsidy the Council tax department with imposed charges; only compensate reasonable costs incurred in connection with obtaining the liability order.

There is no provision in the legislation for costs to provide a source of revenue, nor to act as a deterrent and incentivise payment (encourage behaviour). These are generally advantages highlighted in costs reviews (where documented).

For example NELC’s April 2001 costs review:

5. The decision to charge more in respect of Non-Domestic Rates is one which other local authorities are taking in increasing numbers. (There are two in this region currently, Bradford and Sheffield.) The reasoning behind this is that it is believed that some businesses deliberately delay payment of Rates as the penalty for late payment is so small in comparison to the amount that might be owed. The extra cost is seen as a way of encouraging prompt payment.

6. If the proposal is accepted, then based on the number of Summonses issued and Liability Orders obtained in the current year, an extra £38,000 of additional cost income would be generated bringing the total to approximately £390,000.

2002 increase in summons:

The report identifies ways of funding additional resources to ensure the backlog of work that has arisen due to changes in the IT system are addressed.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

• that the Council Tax summons cost be increased from £10 to £15 with immediate effect.

2011 budget and medium term financial plan:

NELC detailed in its 2011 budget proposals it would raise a forecasted additional £752,000 over 4 years by increasing the summons cost.

It proposed to "Increase summons cost" and was listed in their budget proposals under the heading "Income Generation" and forecasted additional revenue of £188,000 for each of the following 4 years.

Income Generation

1.52 In relation to proposed areas for charging to be introduced, 81 per cent favoured increased charges for summonses compared to 57 per cent who supported charging for replacement bins or garden waste collections. Only 15 per cent were not in favour of any charges being introduced.

The decision to increase charges for the summons had not been brought about by additional costs incurred by the council. It was intended simply to plug a hole in its finances, reinforced by the proposals being put to a vote.


ii) The regulation further provides for costs to be charged in proportion with the level of recovery work done, i.e., there’s a distinction made between the summons and liability order stage of recovery and consequently penalties should be incurred incrementally.

If overall costs had been justified, the following suggests that imposing all these at the summons issuing stage would not be in accordance with regulation 34 to SI 1992/613.

Before a review in April 2011, summons and liability order costs were 56% and 44% of total recovery costs respectively, which would make costs after the review (if justified) only £39 for the summons, not the £70 they're currently charging.

To demonstrate this further; 22% of costs made up the summons charge in 2001. Based on the then costs ratio and today’s figures, the summons should be around £15, of the overall £70 costs.

This highlights both charges have been arbitrarily split to advantage maximum costs income. It has been done progressively over a period of time until the present situation where all costs are loaded to the summons.

An amendment (SI 2011/528 (W 73) which came into force on 1st April 2011 made provisions for £70 to be the maximum costs which could be charged for obtaining a Liability Order. It further specified that this was a total maximum, including those of instituting the application. This was apparently only in respect of Welsh authorities, but nevertheless amending the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992, as are relevant to English councils.

This maximum equals the amount NELC currently charge for issuing a summons. Statistics show, in certain circumstances, Welsh authorities issue annually a very small fraction of NELC’s total. This maximum charge would be reasonable only for those Welsh authorities issuing relatively low numbers of summonses, the logic being that costs are split between fewer defendants. This should be an indication that if English regulations were ever subject to the same amendment, NELC would have no reasonable grounds to charge up to the maximum permissible.

[outlawlgo]

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

From: Deputy Justices Clerk
To: outlawlgo
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 3:36 PM
Subject: FW: Council Tax Liability Order - G45G04/MD/AW

Hello Mr.....

You do not need to be concerned that you cannot add a court case reference number as no individual numbers are allocated to applications of this kind. It will be sufficient for you to note that the matter brought by the Council was for a liability order noting the council reference number from your summons will then be sufficient. I hope this assists.

Regards

Deputy Justices Clerk
Grimsby Magistrates Court

[outlawlgo]

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

From: Deputy Justices Clerk
To: outlawlgo
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 10:14 AM
Subject: RE: Council Tax Liability Order - G45G04/MD/AW

Dear Mr...

Thank you for your email requesting assistance with your appeal. Unfortunately I am not able to do that because of the potential conflict of interest that may arise having regard to my professional role as adviser to the Magistrates whose decision you seek to challenge.

Regards

Deputy Justices Clerk
Grimsby Magistrates Court

[outlawlgo]

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

From: outlawlgo
To: Deputy Justices Clerk
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 9:51 AM
Subject: Re: Council Tax Liability Order - G45G04/MD/AW

Dear Mr....

Could you please fill in details and return the attached application form in respect of the hearing. Bearing in mind I have no details of the liability order; no paperwork, no reference, no names etc.

Yours sincerely

[outlawlgo]

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

From: outlawlgo
Sent: 20 November 2012 10:20
To: Deputy Justices Clerk
Subject: Re: Council Tax Liability Order - G45G04/MD/AW

Dear Mr.....

Thank you for yesterday's email.

I intend to deliver my completed application to the court in person so as to obtain a signature for its receipt, hopefully on Thursday 22nd November.

However, I'm unsure whether the application will also need serving on the council as described as "other party" in 64.2.(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Rules 2012. I'm clearly appealing the decision of the court, but if this is required I will ensure the application is also served on the council.

One other point in regards the Criminal Procedure Rules. I note the 2012 rules have been amended in regards Part 64 (to appeal to the High Court by case stated).

With regards 64.1.(2) of previous editions, this no longer appears in the current 2012 Criminal Procedure Rules:

(2) Where one of the questions on which the opinion of the High Court is sought is whether there was evidence on which the magistrates’ court could come to its decision, the particular finding of fact made by the magistrates’ court which it is claimed cannot be supported by the evidence before the magistrates’ court shall be specified in such application.

Should this be disregarded even though apparently relevant to my case?


Yours sincerely

[outlawlgo]

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

From: Deputy Justices Clerk
To: outlawlgo
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2012 2:19 PM
Subject: RE: Council Tax Liability Order - G45G04/MD/AW

Dear Mr....

In reply to the points made in your email I would ask you to note the following information.

An application to state a case for the opinion of the High Court is governed by strict procedures. Unfortunately it is not possible to give notice and then file additional particulars later this is because once lodged the appeal triggers further procedures which are themselves governed by strict time limits.

As for the fee I can say that it is possible to apply for remission in certain circumstances. A copy of the relevant application form and accompanying notes is available for collection from the court office or it can be downloaded at http://www.justice.gov.uk/forms/hmcts, the booklet number is EX160A (the form is in the booklet and is form EX160).

I hope that this information assists.

Regards

Deputy Justices Clerk
Grimsby Magistrates Court

[outlawlgo]

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

From: outlawlgo
Sent: 16 November 2012 16:42
To: Deputy Clerk to the Justices
Subject: Re: Council Tax Liability Order - G45G04/MD/AW

Dear Mr......

Re: Council Tax Liability Order

Thank you for your 6 November 2012 letter regarding my intention to appeal the court's decision of making a liability order against me.

I've researched provisionally into appealing by way of a case stated. I realise I have only a week to make the application and have discovered a number of forms which might be necessary to complete the application. I fear there will be a requirement to include details I don't have, such as the Magistrates names sitting on the bench and a case or liability order reference.

My concern at this point is the likelihood that all details will not be completed within the 21 day time limit. Is there any way I can buy some time by lodging the appeal and then supplying further details afterwards?

I'm unemployed, receiving no benefits and have no income whatsoever, so you will appreciate seeking legal advice is not a realistic option for me. It does seem however, from my provisional research that there maybe concessions for applicants on low incomes. I wondered if such things could be looked into after the application is made, allowing me time to concentrate on the point of law I wish to base the appeal.

I suppose I'd need to disregard 95% of my original evidence and focus on the fact that no supporting evidence was supplied by the authority to justify their costs were reasonable. And, that the liability order costs had been front loaded to the summons penalty in breach of regulation 34 of the council tax regs.

A point demonstrating this would be that prior to 1 April 2011, summons and liability order costs were 56% and 44% respectively of the total costs, which would make the new costs (if they could be justified) only £39 for the summons, not the £70 they're currently charging.


Yours sincerely