Council Tax Liability Order Applications Court Costs – Test Case

[outlawlgo]

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

From: outlawlgo
To: Clerk to the Justices
Cc: JACO
Sent: February 25, 2016
Subject: Application to State a Case - Grimsby Magistrates' Court

Dear Mrs Watts

The Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman has made me aware of three letters it appears you sent me, dated 16 September 2014, 29 May and 6 July 2015.

Although I now have copies of all three letters, none of these reached me and I was not aware they had been sent, neither did I receive the final case stated which in your 16 September 2014 letter you say was sent to me. The Ombudsman, however, has not sent a copy of the case stated and so would like to have that in order to proceed with my application to the High Court.

If you agree to this would you please clearly state the original date and an effective date of service so I can ensure the relevant papers are served within the 10 day time limit under the procedure rules.

Yours sincerely

outlawlgo

[outlawlgo]

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

The Ombudsman (LGO) has served its Final Decision Statement (not to investigate) after considering the representations made on its draft decision ("#265").

The Final Decision is exactly the same as the draft decision. What a sham.

EDIT:

Customer Satisfaction Survey

You may receive a further letter from the LGO in the coming weeks inviting you to complete a short questionnaire telling us about your experience of the LGO’s service. I hope that you choose to take part in the survey and contribute your views to the research.

I might just do that.

[outlawlgo]

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

From: outlawlgo
To: JACO
Sent: February 27, 2016
Subject: Re: Your complaint to the Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman

Dear JACO

As you will be aware from the email I sent on 25 February 2016 to Mrs Watts, I never received the letters which have been obtained from the Advisory Committee until you sent copies. Neither did I receive the final case stated, which in the 16 September 2014 letter Mrs Watts says was sent to me. Moreover, I have still not been sent a copy, nor [.... redacted .... redacted ....].

This all puts a different perspective on the complaint. Had I received the reply in September 2014, the complaint would have turned to a different matter which would essentially have been to focus on [.... redacted .... redacted ....]. Incidentally, it can now be verified that the Deputy Chairman of the Advisory Committee who dealt with the complaint had mistakenly understood the issues to relate to the Magistrates' decision at the court hearing. My complaint letter clearly defined the issue, i.e. the mishandling of the application to state a case for an appeal to the High Court which were events leading on from the judicial decision referred to by the Deputy Chairman. The complaint letter was also clear in stating that the detail supplied was just preliminary information to get an investigation underway.

Regarding the issues as they now stand, it would seem an investigation should turn to one of [.... redacted .... redacted ....].

From August 2013 when the representations upon the draft case were submitted up until September 2014 (Advisory Committee complaint), the Court was contacted a total nine times in connection with obtaining the finalised document. All communications were ignored [.... redacted .... redacted ....].

In answer to your 23 February email, after considering the letters I now hold it would be most appropriate to amend my complaint to consider what is set out above.

Yours sincerely

outlawlgo

[outlawlgo]

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

From: Jones, Adam (JACO)
To: outlawlgo
Sent: March 03, 2016
Subject: RE: Your complaint to the Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman

Dear Mr outlawlgo,

Thank you for your email and clarifying the issues you now wish to pursue.

I note your concerns now relate to the time period between August 2013 and September 2014 and the concern that the Court was contacted nine times by you in connection with obtaining the finalised Court document. You state that the Court only replied once, but did not act on their undertaking to write to you. Please let me know if my understanding is incorrect.

If this is your complaint, it would appear that the Ombudsman's office is not the appropriate body to take forward your concerns. The Ombudsman can only consider your concerns about how the Advisory Committee handled your judicial misconduct complaint about the two Magistrates, i.e. any concerns arising from the complaint you made in September 2014 and thereafter.

Concerns about the Court not responding to your communications about the missing document would need to be made to the Court Manager in the first instance. However, if (as you state) the Court has failed to respond to your communications, you can escalate your concerns to Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service, Complaint Handling and Enquiries Team. Their contact details are –

Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service
Complaint Handling and Enquiries Team,
Zone C,
1st Floor,
102 Petty France,
London
SW1H 9AJ
Email - ComplaintsCorres<@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk

I would be grateful, in light of the information I have provided in this email, if you still feel you have a complaint that falls within the Ombudsman's remit (solely about the Advisory Committee's handling of your complaint about the two Magistrates).

I hope this information is of assistance and I look forward to hearing from you, by 10 March 2016.

Yours sincerely,

Adam Jones
JACO

[outlawlgo]

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

It's worth a mention that the email I sent the Justices Clerk on 25 February 2016 asking for the case stated to be re-sent (post #271) has disappeared from my email management system. Another sent to HMCTS on another matter has also disappeared.

Of course, I'm not pointing my finger at any organisation for sabotage, attempting to destroy evidence or anything like that, but if something fishy were going on I obviously have all emails relating to these issues saved separately and the majority are posted online anyway.

[outlawlgo]

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

From: outlawlgo
To: Jones, Adam (JACO)
Sent: March 03, 2016
Subject: Re: Your complaint to the Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman

Dear Mr Jones

Thank you for your [3] March 2016 email.

The complaint does surround the Advisory Committee's handling of my judicial misconduct complaint.

I never received the letters which have been obtained from the Advisory Committee until you sent copies. Neither did I receive the final case stated, which in the 16 September 2014 letter Mrs Watts, the Justices' Clerk who handled the complaint (also Secretary to the Advisory Committee) stated was sent to me. Moreover, I have still not been sent a copy, nor do I know when that document was sent. This is all tied in with the Secretary to the Advisory Committee's handling of my judicial misconduct complaint.

As you will recall, the email I sent Mrs Watts on 25 February 2016, asked for the case stated to be re-sent and to be informed of the original date it was served. The Justices' Clerk has not responded to the email which raises the question, why, if the document exists and has been sent once would it be an issue to do so again. The answer, in all probability lies in the fact that the final case stated has never been sent nor produced which can also be said of the 16 September 2014, 29 May and 6 July 2015 letters. On the balance of probabilities, these letters will have been produced in response to the investigation, which by your own admission took a significant amount of time to obtain from the Advisory Committee.

I appreciate the Ombudsman will have as his highest priority for you to find a get out clause, but these are issues that have arisen since the complaint was submitted in September 2014 which fall under the Ombudsman's jurisdiction, and in any event, the issues preceding this were detailed in my complaint as concerns, but which were never addressed. All the concerns I have raised are in relation to the handling (or mishandling) of my complaint.

The Deputy Chairman of the Humber Advisory Committee, who is said to have dealt with the complaint, dismissed it erroneously for the reasons I have previously stated, and as such this also falls under the Ombudsman's remit.


Your sincerely

outlawlgo

[outlawlgo]

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

Some more words for deaf ears (LGO complaint)

From: outlawlgo
To: @ Coinweb.lgo.org.uk
Sent: March 28, 2016
Subject: Re: Confidential: Case ID - 15016673 (COMPLAINT)

Dear LGO

Complaint

I note from various items of correspondence that the Ombudsman is mindful of using public resources sparingly which suggests to me that the vast majority of complaints have to be filtered out. I guess this is enabled by the fact that the LGO, being a statutory complaints process, can apply the law so that one or a number of exemptions can be applied to justify rejecting a complaint based upon it being outside the organisation's jurisdiction. The statutory nature of the process serves as protection for the organisation from those already aggrieved by their council who are further let-down by the LGO as it is able to threaten them with the prospects of having to enter the casino justice system (judicial review) if they disagree with its decision.

The law has been enacted to enable its application with such flexibility that the same complaint could either fall within the LGO's remit and be accepted for investigation or be considered outside its remit and be rejected. The law can therefore be applied so that complaints which are valid and cause the aggrieved person undue amount of injustice, can if the organisation has no desire to address it, call up the law to back up its decision. Anyone taking the only action open to them which is the High Court would not, in my mind stand a chance of success because the law covers all angles in favour of the LGO. A system which I assume is in place to provide a safety net for the oppression of local authorities must be questioned in respect to why its function relies on having the ability to magnify the injustice infinitely by inviting litigation in the High Court.

The organisation appears not to provide any deterrent to local authorities from causing injustice to its residents, presumably because they know that the probability is low with regard to complaints made against them being investigated and upheld. A change in policy, which involves a tougher approach might not only improve the attitude of local government but have the affect of lessening the strain on resources as the number of complaints escalated to the organisation would likely plummet.

Regarding my complaint specifically, I can hardly add more to what I have already submitted in my representations. They have in my mind been completely ignored and can not possibly see how the LGO, if this is typical of all cases, can claim to be acting in the interest of taxpayers who are affected by oppressive councils. The existence of the Ombudsman in my case has clearly made the gross injustice suffered at the hands of the council at least ten times as bad.

Yours sincerely

[outlawlgo]

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

Local Govermnent
OMBUDSMAN

31 March 2016

Mr outlawlgo

Our ref: 15 016 673
(Please quote our reference when contacting us and, if using email, put the number in the email subject line)

If telephoning please contact: 0330 403 4725
email address: A.Hobley@coinweb.lgo.org.uk


Dear Mr outlawlgo

Complaint against North East Lincolnshire Council

The Ombudsman has asked me to review Mr Oxley’s decision on your complaint to make sure this was justified by the evidence.

Mr Oxley has the delegated authority of the Ombudsman to make decisions on her behalf. His decisions carry the same weight in law as decisions made by the Ombudsman herself and can only be challenged by judicial review. There is no right of appeal, but we offer one internal review to consider whether the decision has been made.

I have reviewed how Mr Oxley handled the case to make sure that his decision was justified by the evidence. After reviewing the file and looking carefully at what you have said, I appreciate you may be disappointed, but I support the decision to close your complaint.

Your complaint is, in summary, that the Council made a charge of £70 for the issue of a council tax summons. You disputed the level of the charge. You took legal action against the court in the High Court by way of case stated. You then issued judicial review proceedings, which you later withdrew. You suggested the question costs should be jointly investigated by the Local Government Ombudsman and the Parliamentary Ombudsman.

Schedule 5, paragraph 1 of the Local Government Act 1974 says the Local Government Ombudsman may not investigate “The commencement or conduct of civil or criminal proceedings before any court of law.”

The issue of the summons with the costs was ‘commencement’ of proceedings and so this is out of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and she cannot look at the costs or what happened in court.

You may dispute our understanding of our jurisdiction, but you have also taken legal action against the actions of the court. Although technically this action was not against the Council this would be a reason, were the summons costs in jurisdiction, (which they are not) for the Ombudsman to exercise her general discretion (under Section 24A(6) of the 1974 Act) not to investigate.

This would be by analogy with the legal restriction (in Section 26(6)(c) of the 1974 Act) which means she cannot investigate if someone has used a right to challenge a council’s decision in court. This principal was confirmed by the case of R v The Commissioner for Local Administration ex parte PH (sometimes ex parte H) 1998 (Ex parte PH) where the judge said –

"Finally, it is plain that the intention underlying the Act of 1974 was to provide redress for those people who were denied the possibility of resort to redress of any kind in respect of maladministration by a local authority in exercise of its administrative powers. It can hardly have been the intention of Parliament to have provided two remedies, one substantive by way of judicial review and one compensatory by way of the local commissioner."

"Where a party has ventilated a grievance by means of judicial review it was not contemplated that they should enjoy an alternative, let alone an additional right by way of complaint to a local government commissioner."

And also in R (Scholarstica Umo) v Commissioner for Local Administration in England [2003] EWHC 3202 (Admin) where the judge said “To commence proceedings by Judicial Review will, as a result of the statutory structure, deprive the Ombudsman of jurisdiction thereafter to investigate.”

Concerning the exercise of our discretion I would refer you to R (on the application of Doy) v Commission for Local Administration in England [2002] Env. L.R. 11 where the judge found that decisions of the Commissioners are subject to review, but the Commissioners are given a very wide discretion and the courts can only set aside their decisions if they are wrong in law, irrespective of the fact that any particular Judge would have come to a different decision.

So Mr Oxley was right to say this was not a matter we could investigate.

Because Mr Oxley properly considered your complaint, I will not overturn the decision which he made on behalf of the Ombudsman under her delegated authority. Therefore, although I recognise that this will disappoint you, the decision must stand.

I understand you may continue to disagree. Our process allows for one review of a decision, and this is that review. We have now finished considering your complaint and the decision is final.

Your remaining means of challenging our decision is through judicial review in the High Court. Please take some advice before considering taking such action as the Ombudsman will – as a publicly funded body – to seek to recover our reasonable costs in defending unsuccessful applications.

The case remains closed and we shall not write about or discuss it further because we cannot justify the cost of continuing to communicate with people whose cases we have closed. We shall note any further contact from you, but we will not acknowledge it or reply unless it clearly contains new information which we decide has a bearing on our decision.

Yours sincerely


Andrew Hobley
Assessment Team Leader

[outlawlgo]

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

Local Government Ombudsman
PO Box 4771
Coventry
CV4 0EH

12 April 2016


Ref: 15 016 673


Dear Mr Hobley

Representations on final decision review

1. The complaint to the LGO concerned first and foremost the council’s mishandling of the complaint, by which I mean the matters raised were not investigated properly. Irrelevancies were focused on which had the overall affect of leaving the salient points unaddressed.

2. Leaving that aside, there are several matters which can be separated from those relating to the commencement of court proceedings, notably the Council engineering default by misallocating payment to a previous year’s account which was clearly intended to reduce the current year’s liability. The delay and sometimes complete failure in responding to queries amounts to maladministration and has been a common theme highlighted throughout the complaint.


Is a part of the complaint separable from the matter which has been litigated?

3. LGO Guidance¹ suggests that an investigator with delegated authority to make decisions would be required to identify “aspects of complaint which are separable” from appeal matters, and those that can, be will be within jurisdiction even when a complainant has resorted to court proceedings.

4. I am aware from a report on an investigation into Newham Borough Council (ref 08 019 113) that the ombudsman retains ‘jurisdiction to investigate administrative actions prior to the issue of court proceedings’. That would tie in with the LGO Guidance where it deals with the commencement of proceedings under Schedule 5 of the Local Government Act 1974 (the ‘1974 Act’) and the claim made that the LGO has ‘found fault with councils obtaining Liability Orders from the courts for unpaid Council Tax where they should not have done’. Furthermore, listed among the matters that are IN jurisdiction under the same heading is ‘the process leading up to the council’s decision to commence proceedings’.

_________________

¹ Guidance on jurisdiction – June 2015


R v The Commissioner for Local Administration ex parte PH [1999] EWCA Civ 916

5. Specifically regarding the above case, the matter upon which Turner J based his judgment appears to have been on the grounds that the complainant had no entitlement to seek compensation via the Ombudsman because the applicant had resorted to a remedy in court and the matter settled by way of a consent order in the applicant’s favour. In my case, although a remedy has been exercised, none has been reached, nor has there been a ruling on the matter appealed, which if there had been, would if the proceedings were on the same point, put the complaint out of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

6. I understand in circumstances similar to my case the Ombudsman follows counsel opinion with regards exercising discretion. This means that the Ombudsman does not exercise her discretion once a complainant has made an application to the court ‘irrespective of what then happens’. Though this would apply ‘even if the application is rejected or withdrawn before the hearing’, I would question whether as a blanket approach, the courts would accept this argument. It is conceivable that in a case similar to mine where the application has neither been rejected nor withdrawn that a court would deem there a greater reason for discretion being used because the Magistrates’ court, by ensuring the remedy resorted to is impossible to reach, is causing additional injustice.

Note: The equivalent legislation² setting out the LGO’s powers (1974 Act) contains the same provision (s26(6)(c) / Schedule 5 para 1) with regards seeking a remedy through the courts. However, where the LGO interprets this as having no jurisdiction, merely on account of the complainant commencing proceedings, the Welsh Ombudsman (and it seems the PHSO) only considers this a jurisdiction barrier where a legal remedy has been sought and one obtained. It therefore goes that an applicant who has been unable to obtain a remedy may have recourse to the ombudsmen who may then be free to exercise discretion to investigate a complaint.

_________________

² The Public Services Ombudsman (Wales) Act 2005 “Section 9(1)(c) / Schedule 2 para 2”. The Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 “Section 5(2)(b) / Schedule 3 para 6”. The Health Service Commissioners Act 1993 “Section 4(1)(b)”.


Possibility of joint working with Parliamentary Ombudsman (PHSO)

7. The final review summarises my complaint as follows, despite extensive representations contesting this interpretation:

“Your complaint is, in summary, that the Council made a charge of £70 for the issue of a council tax summons. You disputed the level of the charge. You took legal action against the court in the High Court by way of case stated. You then issued judicial review proceedings, which you later withdrew. You suggested the question costs should be jointly investigated by the Local Government Ombudsman and the Parliamentary Ombudsman.”

8. There is little merit reiterating what has already been submitted in my representations but one material inaccuracy concerning the suggestion of a joint investigation with the PHSO needs highlighting. The summary above states that I suggested the costs should be jointly investigated, though the question of costs, in reference to the PHSO’s involvement was not the remedy I sought. Paragraph 2 in my complaint contained the following:

“It is therefore suggested that the main body of the complaint and the matter of the Magistrates’ court perverting the course of justice are jointly investigated in conjunction with the Parliamentary Ombudsman under powers granted by 2007 Regulatory Reform legislation.”

9. The reference to ‘perverting the course of justice’ was not a reference to costs but to the Magistrates’ Courts mismanagement of the application (case stated) that has resulted in the failure to reach an outcome (see Annex A). This is clarified a number of times in the representations on the Ombudsman’s draft decision. On every occasion (example below) the reference is clearly to the Magistrates Court’s maladministration:

“It is in this matter that the supporting documents, if they had been considered, would have highlighted the true extent of HMCTS’s maladministration that involved lying to prevent an outcome of the proceedings and why it was recommended to be jointly investigated with the Parliamentary Ombudsman. Despite this; though I’m pursuing the available remedy, and have never withdrawn my appeal, it is reasonable that the Ombudsman would consider the matter out of my control, and for practical purposes deem that resolve via the High Court is not a reasonable alternative to the Ombudsman’s involvement.”

10. The gross injustice caused by the combined maladministration of these two bodies could not in my mind be more suited to be jointly investigated by the LGO and PHSO.


Where the relevant legal proceedings have been instigated by the council

11. Schedule 5 of the 1974 Act is cited in the review to justify not investigating with regard to the council taking the matter to court, i.e., para 1 (Sch 5) says the Ombudsman may not investigate “the commencement or conduct of civil or criminal proceedings before any court of law.” The relevant paragraph (the review) is quoted below:

“The issue of the summons with the costs was ‘commencement’ of proceedings and so this is out of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and she cannot look at the costs or what happened in court.”

12. The guidance however states that s26(6)(c) does not apply where the proceedings have been instigated by the council, though ‘if the matter has been considered by the court it may be appropriate not to investigate under s24A(6). In these circumstances the investigator must consider the court’s decision and presumably would need to take into account ‘aspects of complaint which are separable’ and ‘the process leading up to the council’s decision’ (see above paras 1-4).

13. The guidance then advises that ‘where in the course of such proceedings the complainant has made a counterclaim against the council in relation to the subject matter of his complaint, s/he may be treated as having exercised an alternative remedy under s26(6)(c)’. But to properly determining that the bar should apply would also require taking into account ‘aspects of complaint which are separable’ etc. etc., and the point (para 6 above) about people who are denied the possibility of redress i.e., where the application has neither been rejected nor withdrawn³.

_________________

³ The review cites R (Scholarstica Umo) v Commissioner for Local Administration in England [2003] EWHC 3202 (Admin) to endorse its decision of having no jurisdiction, merely on account of the complainant commencing proceedings. However, in that case the claimant was refused permission to apply for judicial review and so does not relate to a case where the application has neither been rejected nor withdrawn.


14. Regarding ‘a counterclaim against the council’, the remedy sought, although summons costs factored into representations, the questions of law on which the opinion of the High Court was sought, did not centre on the ‘level of the charge’ (See Annex B).

15. Finally, it is underestimating the extent of the injustice caused by the maladministration to say that it amounts to a mere £60 when clearly that is just the starting point and the knock-on affects are potentially far more serious. I have been pursuing these issues with the council over a protracted period and therefore it is necessary to examine events over the whole period, so as to appreciate the full extent of the maladministration and injustice.


Yours sincerely

Annex A

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT

CHRONOLOGY.......

Annex B

(Content of Skeleton Argument relevant to these representations)

SUBMISSIONS


Questions for the High Court


19. The questions of law on which the opinion of the High Court is sought were presented to the Magistrates’ court on 22.11.12 in accordance with the relevant Criminal Procedure Rules, in the following terms:

“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.”

20. In Nicolson v Tottenham Magistrates it was held unlawful for the court to award costs without having sufficient relevant information from the billing authority to support them. Consequently the first question of law in the present case appears to be resolved in the judgment at paragraph 61 which states as follows:

“This application for judicial review of the decision taken by the Magistrates must therefore succeed. I was told that since the hearing the order for costs against the Claimant has been withdrawn, but that does not render the proceedings academic; as I have said, it raises issues of wider public importance. Had the order not been withdrawn, I would have quashed it. Since it has been withdrawn, I will declare that the order was unlawful, because:

i) the Magistrates did not have sufficient relevant information before them to reach a proper judicial determination of whether the costs claimed represented costs reasonably incurred by the Council in obtaining the liability order;

ii) the Magistrates erred in law by failing to make further inquiries into how the £125 was computed and what elements it comprised; and

iii) the Claimant was denied a fair opportunity to challenge the lawfulness of the order before it was made, by reason of the failure to answer his requests for the provision of information as to how the sum of £125 was arrived at.”

21. Put in context of the present case it is evident that the Council merely informed the Magistrates' Court of the standard sum it had decided it would impose as costs and provided no evidence as to how they were arrived at, and what costs they represented (see below paras 45-46).

22. Though the court enquired into how the costs were justified at the hearing on 2.11.12, the Council simply offered that it was not required to justify costs to the court and had never submitted a breakdown. It was however stated generally that they covered Council Tax collection and recovery, IT systems, employment of staff and HMCTS for the use of their facilities.

[outlawlgo]

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

From: A.Hobley@coinweb.lgo.org.uk
To: outlawlgo
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2016
Subject: Confidential: Case ID - 15016673


13 April 2016


Our ref: 15 016 673
(Please quote our reference when contacting us)


Dear Mr outlawlgo,

I note your comments on my review of Mr Oxley's decision, but have nothing further to say. If you wish to challenge Mr Oxley's decision I suggest you seek legal advice before starting judicial review proceedings.


Yours sincerely


Andrew Hobley
Assessment Team Leader
0330 403 4725
LOCAL GOVERNMENT OMBUDSMAN

[outlawlgo]

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

From: outlawlgo
To: A.Hobley@coinweb.lgo.org.uk
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2016
Subject: Re: Confidential: Case ID - 15016673


Dear Mr Hobley


Any further action taken over this won't be via the casino justice system, it will be a report to the fraud squad for the £15 million annually the LGO thieves from the taxpayer.


Yours sincerely


outlawlgo

[outlawlgo]

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

From: outlawlgo
To: Clerk to the Justices
Cc: JACO
Sent: February 25, 2016
Subject: Application to State a Case - Grimsby Magistrates' Court

Dear Mrs Watts

The Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman has made me aware of three letters it appears you sent me, dated 16 September 2014, 29 May and 6 July 2015.

Although I now have copies of all three letters, none of these reached me and I was not aware they had been sent, neither did I receive the final case stated which in your 16 September 2014 letter you say was sent to me. The Ombudsman, however, has not sent a copy of the case stated and so would like to have that in order to proceed with my application to the High Court.

If you agree to this would you please clearly state the original date and an effective date of service so I can ensure the relevant papers are served within the 10 day time limit under the procedure rules.

Yours sincerely

outlawlgo

The final case stated which the justices' clerk claims to have sent but was never received is the reason why the appeal can not progress (appeal papers are complete).

The email above asked for the case to be resent but it was never replied to. The Ministry of Justice was asked to intervene and it responded as follows:

"Re email of 25 February 2016 to Alison Watts - I would like the MoJ to disclose who or what department at Grimsby Magistrates Court dealt with the correspondence, and what the court’s policy is in regards picking and choosing which correspondence it replies to.

I can confirm that there is not a policy of “picking and choosing” correspondence to reply to within HMCTS. All courts endeavour to reply to correspondence usually within 5 working but usually no later than 10 working days.

I have spoken to Ms Watts and she apologises for the delay in response and for not arranging for you to be updated with the fact that she is dealing with your email. Ms Watts has confirmed that she will respond to your email of 25 February by no later than 15 April 2016. Ms Watts has been considering this matter and has had to review the file to give full consideration to the matter raised.

No correspondence has been received yet from the justices' clerk relating to this.

[outlawlgo]

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

Judicial Conduct Ombudsman’s Preliminary Investigation Report

Judicial Appointments & Conduct
Ombudsman

Our ref: 15-2489

Mr Xxxx Yyyyyy

yyyyyyyxxxx@mail.com

23 May 2016

Dear Mr Yyyyyy


Your complaint

Thank you for your correspondence with my officers setting out your concerns about your complaint.

I asked Mr Rose to consider this matter; as you are aware his letter indicated that I would conduct a full investigation, including referring my report to the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice. However I have since discussed the matter with him and concluded that your complaint does not raise issues which could enable me to make a finding of maladministration.

I am therefore afraid that I must refuse to accept your complaint for a full investigation. You will see from the accompanying reports that I was content that the Humber Advisory Committee properly considered and dismissed your complaint on 2 September 2014, in accordance with the relevant legislation and guidance.

The fact that three letters did not reach you is surprising as they were properly addressed except for a minor error in the postcode which should not have prevented delivery. I do not consider that a finding of maladministration is possible for this error.

Concerns that you raise about the Court's response to your application for Judicial Review do not fall within the scope of the disciplinary process and were properly dismissed by the Humber Advisory Committee in accordance with legislation and guidance. The Court's response to your application for Judicial Review is outside my remit and I cannot comment further on that issue.

I appreciate that you will be disappointed that I have not been able to accept your complaint for a full investigation, but I can assure you that I did consider the matter most carefully before reaching my decision.

Yours sincerely,


Mr Paul Kernaghan CBE

_______________________________________________

JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS AND CONDUCT OMBUDSMAN’S PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION REPORT

COMPLAINT BY MR XXXX YYYYYY

Introduction

1. Mr Xxxx Yyyyyy asked me to review the investigation by the Humber Advisory Committee (HAC) of his complaint against Mr J A O’Nions JP and Mr T A Shepherdson JP.
The complaint

2. Mr Yyyyyy complained to me on 8 August 2015. I have carried out a preliminary investigation into his concerns that the HAC did not respond to his complaint: I could not consider his complaint about the Court’s failure to provide a “case stated” response to his application for Judicial Review as this could not be dealt with under the regulated disciplinary procedures and is therefore outside my remit.

The background

3. Mr Yyyyyy faced a summons to appear at Grimsby Magistrates Court on 2 November 2012 for non-payment of Council Tax. He paid the outstanding tax plus part of the costs demanded in the summons prior to the hearing. He was concerned that on the date of the hearing the court made him liable for the outstanding costs. He subsequently applied to Judicially Review this decision and the matter appears to have been settled with the Council at that point. On 2 September 2014 Mr Yyyyyy complained to the HAC about the magistrates hearing his case. His complaint was dismissed on 16 September 2014 on the grounds that he was complaining about a judicial decision which did not raise a question of misconduct. Mr Yyyyyy did not receive the letter and subsequently complained about this to the Judicial Office and the JCIO.

My decision

4. I have not identified any issue arising in my preliminary investigation which could lead to a finding of maladministration. I consider that the error in the post code of the dismissal letter of 2 September 2015 should not have prevented it from being delivered, as the whole of the postal address was correctly set out, and if it was undelivered it should have been returned to the HAC for further action and re-issue. This minor error could not in itself amount to maladministration. I note that the HAC re-issued the dismissal letter on two further occasions but that there is no proof of postage as the letter was sent by standard post. It is unfortunate that the HAC did not email a copy to Mr Yyyyyy when it posted a copy of the letter, but again this omission could not amount to maladministration. I am content that Mr Yyyyyy’s complaint of 2 September 2014 was properly dismissed in accordance with disciplinary legislation and guidance. For these reasons I cannot accept this complaint for a full investigation

Paul Kernaghan CBE

23 May 2016

[outlawlgo]

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

Investigating Officers Report (JACO)

Annex A

JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS AND CONDUCT OMBUDSMAN’S OFFICE
COMPLAINT BY MR XXXX YYYYYY
INVESTIGATING OFFICER’S REPORT

INTRODUCTION

1. This report is prepared following a request by Mr Xxxx Yyyyyy, that the Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman review the conduct of an investigation by the Humber Advisory Committee (HAC) of his complaint against Mr JA O’Nions JP and Mr T A Shepherdson JP. This report will form part of the evidence considered by the Ombudsman in assessing the complaint.

BACKGROUND

2. The papers I have seen indicate that Mr Yyyyyy faced a summons to appear at Grimsby Magistrates Court on 2 November 2012 for non-payment of Council Tax. He paid the outstanding tax plus part of the costs demanded in the summons prior to the hearing. He was concerned that on the date of the hearing the court made him liable for the outstanding costs. He subsequently applied to Judicially Review this decision and the matter appears to have been settled with the Council at that point. On 2 September 2014 Mr Yyyyyy complained to the HAC about the magistrates hearing his case. His complaint was dismissed on 16 September 2014 on the grounds that he was complaining about a judicial decision which did not raise a question of misconduct. Mr Yyyyy did not receive the letter and subsequently complained about this to Judicial Office, the JCIO and to you.

THE COMPLAINT

3. Mr Yyyyyy contacted the Ombudsman’s Office on 8 August 2015 and made final comments on 3 March 2016. The Ombudsman has agreed to investigate the concerns that: the HAC failed to properly respond to his complaint or his correspondence and dismissed the complaint erroneously.

4. Mr Yyyyyy asked the Ombudsman to investigate his concern that the court had not properly responded to his application for Judicial Review and had not provided a “case stated” document. The complaint about the Court’s handling of the Judicial Review application would be outside the Ombudsman’s remit as it does not concern a matter which could be considered under the disciplinary legislation as it does not concern the actions of a judicial office-holder. The Ombudsman cannot therefore consider it within the powers granted to him under the Constitutional Reform Act 2005.

MY OBSERVATIONS

The complaint to the Advisory Committee

5. On 2 September 2014 Mr Yyyyyy complained to the Central Secretarial Office in Doncaster that

two Magistrates, Mr O’Nions and Mr Shepherdson had adjudicated on his case and allowed the local authority to enforce payment of an unpaid element of his court summons costs; and that

his application was subsequently submitted to the Magistrates’ Court to state a case in his appeal to the High Court, he believed the failure to respond to this request was a failing in the Magistrates’ behaviour which he described as “conduct [which] has been such to pervert the course of justice”.

6. Mr Yyyyyy attached an affidavit to his complaint which he had produced for his application for Judicial Review, this document set out a chronology of the events surrounding the hearing of his case; it also set out his attempts to obtain a response to his application from the court. The papers show that the application was not proceeded with as the local authority responded with an offer acceptable to Mr Yyyyyy.
The Advisory Committee’s handling of the complaint

7. On 16 September 2014 the HAC responded, stating that the Chairman had dismissed both aspects of his complaint because:

first, the complaint related to a judicial decision which did not raise a question of misconduct and

second, the complaint about correspondence in his legal proceedings concerned actions which were not done or caused to be done by the Magistrates.

8. I observe that the disciplinary rules state that:

The Chairman of the Advisory Committee or the Advisory Committee must dismiss a complaint, or part of a complaint, if it falls into any of the following categories: 32(b) it is about a judicial decision or judicial case management, and raises no question of misconduct; and 32(c) the action complained of was not done or caused to be done by a magistrate.

9. I also observe that first tier complaints bodies such as the HAC do not have the power to investigate complaints about criminal behaviour such as ‘perverting the course of justice’ this is a matter for police action if appropriate.

10. The response was sent to Mr Yyyyyy but did not reach him. I observe that the postal address was correctly stated on the letter but that the postcode was written as DN32 0Q3 rather than DN32 0QJ.

11. Having not received the response, Mr Yyyyyy emailed the Judicial Office HR Team at the Royal Courts of Justice on 14 May 2015 to complain. His complaint was forwarded to the HAC which sent another copy of the dismissal letter to him on 29 May 2015; unfortunately this letter did not reach him (it had the same error in the postcode but was otherwise correctly addressed). I observe that the HAC did not email a copy of the letter to Mr Yyyyyy.

12. On 25 June 2015 Mr Yyyyyy emailed the Judicial Complaints Investigations Office (JCIO) to complain that his complaint had been ignored by the Secretary of the HAC. The JCIO forwarded the email to the HAC on 29 June 2015.

13. On 16 July 2015 the HAC sent another copy of the dismissal letter to him, unfortunately this letter did not reach him (it had the same error in the postcode but was otherwise correctly addressed). I observe that the HAC did not email a copy of the letter to Mr Yyyyyy.

14. Mr Yyyyyy then complained to the Ombudsman.

15. I asked the HAC to ask if it had a record of postage of the letters; it responded:

“A log is not maintained of post that is sent out by the Advisory Committee. Correspondence that for any reason is despatched by recorded delivery will of course have proof of posting. Correspondence of the description sent to Mr Yyyyyy is issued by ordinary post and will be despatched on the date of the correspondence or exceptionally the next working day if for some reason the mail does not reach the collection by Royal Mail from the court office in time.”

16. The Ombudsman will consider whether there is any maladministration in the handling of Mr Yyyyyy’s complaint and his correspondence.

17. The Judicial Conduct (Magistrates) Rules 2014 state that:

..::::...:::::...:::::...

Nick Rose
Investigating Officer
2016

[outlawlgo]

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

From: [outlawlgo]
To: Rose, Nicholas
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2016 5:05 PM
Subject: Re: Emailing: [outlawlgo] final letter


Dear Mr Rose

I have briefly looked at the attachments and from what I've seen the contents are so misrepresentative of the truth that they are hardly recognisable.

It is so obvious that the Ombudsman is being fed a pack of lies by the [redact] yet you are prepared to allow this injustice on the basis that she is being honest.

How has the Ministry of Justice managed to deteriorate to such a state that it is staffed [redact]?

I would like my criticism officially recording.


Your sincerely