Council Tax Liability Order Applications Court Costs – Test Case

[outlawlgo]

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

[outlawlgo]

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

[outlawlgo]

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

Hopefully Militant will be able to give a way forward as well They may just have done you a favour!

Yes, thanks. I just read that post. Picked up a complaint leaflet (EX343) on the way out of court, so the Felixtowe Justices case law will go in for sure.

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

Hopefully Militant will be able to give a way forward as well They may just have done you a favour!

[outlawlgo]

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

I don't know the answer to this, but are they legally allowed to deny you this information?

I asked three different people. The last person on the enquiry desk asked her supervisor (a fourth) and nobody would reveal who was in the court room. They reiterated to just state the courtroom number, date etc., on any correspondence. It's also unlikely they'll release details even on written request.

[miliitant]

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

no labman, they cannot refuse to give out that info unless its for security reasons, terrorism case etc

its a fundamental right to know your accusers and who is to judge you in the court of the realm

look up the 1987 case of R v Felixstowe Justices, in which it was held that it was unlawful for a court to refuse to give the names of magistrates sitting in proceedings.


Held by Lord Justice Watson that :-" There is a right to know who sits in judgement, and denial of that right is unlawful, unwarranted and inimical to the proper administration of justice, further that there is no such person known to Law as 'the anonymous JP'.”
“The practice among some Magistrates of claiming anonymity has been declared unlawful (R v Felixstowe Justices (ex parte Leigh) [1987] 1 All ER. 551, DC).
Open justice, it was said, demands that the names of those who sit in judgment should be known."

i am glad my law studies are starting to produce results

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

I'll include the details when I get it all written up, but I can tell you there was no cooperation from any of the court staff when I asked for the names of the Magistrates and Clerk after the hearing. All female staff, Ushers etc., called security whenever I requested any information. Consequently they wouldn't give their names, so no way of finding out what type of Magistrates they were.

I left the courtroom saying it wasn't the end of the matter, so yes, I'll be looking at appealing the decision.

I don't know the answer to this, but are they legally allowed to deny you this information?

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

I sincerely hope so. I doubt anyone else in the country has such a strong case for CT as you, and your knowledge is now immense.

[outlawlgo]

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

I'll include the details when I get it all written up, but I can tell you there was no cooperation from any of the court staff when I asked for the names of the Magistrates and Clerk after the hearing. All female staff, Ushers etc., called security whenever I requested any information. Consequently they wouldn't give their names, so no way of finding out what type of Magistrates they were.

I left the courtroom saying it wasn't the end of the matter, so yes, I'll be looking at appealing the decision.

[miliitant]

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

was it a lay magistrate or a Stipendiary Magistrate

stipendiary are the same as district judges now i believe

are you considering an "appeal" and getting case law

[outlawlgo]

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

All done at court.

The verdict was as I expected. However, I had probably about just under an hour in the courtroom which I didn't expect. I will write up in detail but here's a basic account:

Appeared before two Magistrates this morning disputing NELC's summons costs. The Clerk to the Justices who directed the hearing and advised the pair on the bench about relevant points of law was clued up and seemed to agree with my written evidence which amounted to more than 40 pages.

Throughout the hearing the lead Magistrate displayed no understanding of the evidence I'd submitted nor any specialist knowledge of the relevant regulations which would be key to determining a fair verdict.

Regardless of the Clerk to the Justices pointing out the legal position, the Magistrates were hell bent on going their own way and siding with the prosecution (North East Lincolnshire Council).

After retiring for less than ten minutes to reach a decision, the Magistrates returned to give the verdict. Out of the forty pages of evidence I'd supplied, the Chair of the bench singled out one paragraph which was deemed, theoretically, to be contempt of court. This was focussed on and used as leverage to circumvent due process and conclude that the Councils summons costs were reasonable.

The Magistrate dismissed 40 pages of evidence, merely because he had been able to exploit a few words which either offended him or he claimed were offensive.

The paragraph he used:

This is almost certainly a revenue scam. The true costs incurred by the authority are clearly a fraction of those dishonestly being claimed through the court. It is also clear North East Lincs residents charged with these costs, are being exploited by the Magistrates' court and council's joint heist operation.

I stand by that as being truth, what was his problem?

[outlawlgo]

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

Grimsby Magistrates Court
Victoria Street
Grimsby
North East Lincolnshire
DN31 1NH

Ref: NG/CTR/12912

28 October 2012



Dear Sir/Madam

Re: Council Tax Liability Order Hearing 2nd November 2012 – Account 550xxxxxxx

I will be submitting a claim for costs in addition to disputing the council’s costs.

There are no legal fees nor will costs be claimed through a Solicitor as I receive no income, neither employment nor benefits. The costs then will be in connection with time spent by myself and charged at an hourly rate of £18.00.

The claim is split into two categories:

1. Direct costs in connection with hearing.

2. Indirect costs due to council’s negligence in court applications and bailiff enforcement.

Much of the work involved researching legislation. For example, it had been necessary to look at the Data Protection Act 1998 and National Standards for Enforcement Agents to submit complaint(s) to the Information Commissioner for the council’s bailiff contractor mishandling personal data. Another was a lengthy report submitted to the Ministry of Justice as a consequence of NELC’s negligence. The Fraud Act 2006 and the Home Office circular 47/2004 had both been necessary for an understanding of the respective fraud definitions and police guidance.


Yours sincerely

[outlawlgo]

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

Grimsby Magistrates Court
Victoria Street
Grimsby
North East Lincolnshire
DN31 1NH

Ref: NG/CTR/12912

26 October 2012



Dear Sir/Madam


Re: Council Tax Liability Order Hearing 2nd November 2012 – Account 550xxxxxxx

I will be attending Grimsby Magistrates’ court on 2 November unless notification is sent by the Council of an application withdrawal for a liability order.

The outstanding tax has been paid plus an amount covering court fees and the authority's anticipated award of costs which will be applied for at the hearing. However, there is a £60 shortfall to that stated on the summons. The council assumes the Bench is going to award total costs, which when split between the number of defendants, will be a round £70 for each individual. The discrepancy arises because I have budgeted for a maximum of £10.

I have sent details explaining why I believe these costs are unreasonable. I trust the evidence will be sufficient that the court will question the reasonableness of NELC’s claims and require that the council provide evidence to support the amount claimed by way of costs is no more than it reasonably incurs. The “Council Tax practice note number 9” is applicable here which is quoted in both 17 October and 28 September letters under reference NG/CTR/12912.

The main points raised are as follows:


1) Determining costs imposed before case is heard

These issues are covered in my 17 September letter and detail the difficulties, or rather impossibility of determining an award of costs in advance.

The main consideration in establishing the level is evaluating how many orders are applied for in respect of each hearing. This number varies, and so should the costs.

The inclusion of a letter from the council, highlights the nature of its relationship with the court, i.e., the council, on behalf of the Magistrates’ court, determines its own costs.


2) Increasing and Front Loading Penalties

My 17 & 18 September correspondence deals with the council’s decision to raise court costs to plug a gap in its finances. Cabinet documents reveal how in its budget proposals the council forecasted it could raise £752,000 additional revenue over a four year period by increasing the summons penalty.

A proportion of this increased revenue can be attributable to the council’s decision to front load the fees. The authority advised the court that it would no longer charge for the liability order. It is now included in the summons charge breaching Council Tax regulations – a detailed explanation is given.


3) Hiking Costs to Increase Revenue / Fund Additional Resources

Two costs reviews, further to the above are highlighted in the letters of 19 & 20 September. The first reveals how extra staff in Revenues & Benefits Service were funded by implementing a 50% increase in the summons penalty to clear up a backlog of work that had arisen due to changes in the IT system. The other review had two apparent functions. The penalty increase for both Council Tax and Business rates penalties intended to raise an additional income of £38,000 a year. In the case of Business rates, costs were raised disproportionately to council tax as a way of encouraging prompt payment. Hiking costs this way, i.e., creating a deterrent breaches the council tax regulations.

No evidence is apparent in any of the reviews that the council was obliged to submit evidence supporting claims it had incurred additional costs.


4) £1.13 million Incurred by Council – Attributable to Recovery

The letters dated September 21, 24, 25, 26 and 28 analyse the costs which the council claim to be around £1.13 million annually (2011/12 Revenues budget).

The total figure is broken down into three categories – Council Tax, Monitoring & Control and Debt Collection. A percentage of the total budget allocated to each category is attributed to recovery work. No further breakdown is given, and so no proof that the costs are incurred exclusively in the preparation of court applications. The indication is however, that most of this expenditure would account for normal day to day administration costs incurred to run the council tax department.

This has in fact been admitted by the council. Once by the Chief Executive, where in a response made about what costs covered he stated: “the wages of the staff employed to collect Council Tax and Business Rates”. Another, under the Freedom of Information Act: “the costs raised are to cover the cost of Council Tax collection and recovery”.


5) Relationship Between Summons and Liability Order Costs

The letter of September 27 concentrates less on the increases and overall costs charged to the alleged debtor but focuses on the proportion, i.e., the level of the summons penalty in comparison with the liability order costs.

The overall costs appear arbitrarily split between the summons and liability order, suggesting no costing is done to support it. Over several years, the summons went from being the lower of the two charges, gaining more weight until all cost (liability order) had been front loaded to it.

It’s therefore pretty much safe to say that these costs have been manipulated (in breach of council tax regulations) to maximise income.

In 2001-02 the summons penalty was 22 per cent of the overall costs, the following year 30. In 2004-05 it was up to 55 per cent and by 2011 the liability order cost was completely incorporated into the summons. All costs are now charged to the alleged debtor at this point with the liability order element incurred prematurely.


Additional information


Negotiating take-up of Direct Debit:

After recovery action has commenced, it seems council tax payers having agreed terms laid down by their respective councils are managing to get recovery action reversed. Concessions differ from one authority to another but include Summons and costs being withdrawn, reinstating instalments, and, agreeing not to apply for a liability order. Generally, the condition is that the account holder switches to Direct Debit, the council's preferred payment method.

The point was made that the level of costs charged to the individual is dependent on how many orders are applied for by the council in item 1. There are therefore far greater implications for the alleged debtor than simply whether or not a concession is given for the take-up of Direct Debit.

Because of this, total costs are being split between fewer account payers, thus a larger penalty is being charged to the householder as a direct consequence of councils campaigning for a greater take-up of Direct Debit.

As well as the added imposed burden this has on the rate payer, unless a specific clause in the legislation provides for the council to apply regulations discretionally, then the authority will almost certainly be breaching the Council Tax regulations.


A comparison between councils:

I have compared Summons costs between North East Lincolnshire Council and two other unitaries – Darlington Borough Council and Rutland County Council, to see if any logical link exists between the level of costs charged.

Data relates to 2011-12

If recovery methods don’t differ greatly between councils, and there’s no reason why they should, then some very serious questions need answering regarding why NELC require 16 times the expenditure of Rutland Council for the same work.

It could be argued that accounts raised by NELC far out-number those of Rutland Council. This is a factor, but automation will mean this is not so significant. However, factoring this in, a ratio of the number of accounts raised to total summons costs income, still raises serious concerns when Rutland scores 3.64 to North East Lincolnshire’s 11.44.

These examples do not necessarily demonstrate the greatest disparity between costs income claimed by local authorities. Further analysis, will I’m sure, reveal more supporting evidence of the arbitrary nature of costs charged to alleged debtors.

Looking provisionally at two London Boroughs we enter a whole different league. Both Harrow and Harringey charge £125 for a summons. The former edges it score above 21, whilst Harringey, with almost £3.5 million for 102,647 summonses, reaches almost 34 as its income ratio.

With Harringey claiming almost 70 times the expenditure of Rutland Council for the year, this I would have thought highlights the urgent need for the whole process to be regulated.



Yours sincerely

[outlawlgo]

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

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


Ref: NG/CTR/12912


17 October 2012


Dear Ms ......


Re: Council Tax Reminder, Summons and Recovery – Account 550xxxxxxx

I have today paid £437.52 into North East Lincolnshire council’s bank account. This is the sum outstanding on my 2012-13 council tax liability, settled well before the statutory instalment arrangement dictates.

An additional £10 has been paid to cover summons costs. £3 to cover Magistrates court fees and the remainder is NELC’s costs. However, I consider £7 to be an over generous amount to cover those incurred by the council given they are mass produced documents.

I believe the authority must apply for an award of costs at each court hearing. I therefore expect any surplus credited to my account upon the Bench awarding the council less than £10 cost.

It is important you let me know in advance of the hearing whether or not the council will be requesting a liability order for the £60 shortfall of the stated amount payable on its summons.

The document I received today states on it a £70 summons cost payable.

I believe NELC have a policy of only progressing accounts to enforcement for amounts over £50. The position here is unclear if this relates to the liability order stage or any preceding it. However, the amount according to NELC is £60 and so will assume no response from the council will mean I’m required to attend the hearing if I wish to dispute costs.

A request made under the Freedom of Information Act gave North East Lincolnshire Council an opportunity to supply a breakdown of costs attributable to its recovery operations. It was unable to do this, only a fraction of the questions were reluctantly answered and only after attempting to circumvent the request by improperly citing exemptions under the Act.

It seems from the response that North East Lincolnshire Council has breached regulations 34(5)(b) of the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 which state that these costs need to have been reasonably incurred by the authority.

The inability demonstrated by North East Lincolnshire Council to determine these costs, is proof enough that the Magistrates' court will have had no basis to assess the reasonableness of the authority's claims.

It is therefore inconceivable that North East Lincolnshire Council, or the Magistrates' court for that matter, can lawfully state on the summons document that a predetermined £70 costs has been reasonably incurred.

For your reference, the Council tax practice note number 9 states on page 8:

3.18...The order will include the costs reasonably incurred by the authority in securing the order. Whilst it is likely that authorities will have discussed a scale of fees with the Clerk to Justices it should be recognised that the Court may wish to be satisfied that the amount claimed by way of costs in any individual case is no more than that reasonably incurred by the authority.

Regarding my concerns on this matter, I intend to put it to the Magistrates’ court that in light of the evidence, they do insist that the amount claimed in costs per individual, is no more than that reasonably incurred by the authority.

Yours sincerely

[outlawlgo]

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

The Summons arrived this morning, with notification that the hearing will be at Grimsby Magistrates' Court on Friday morning, November 2.

Oddly there's a 7 day interval between the date of issue and receiving the document through the post.