Council Tax Liability Order Applications Court Costs – Test Case

[outlawlgo]

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

The Rules supervising the initial procedures for appeals by way of case stated from decisions of the magistrates' courts in respect of civil proceedings (council tax proceedings are civil proceedings) are not the Criminal Procedure Rules as you have suggested in your correspondence, but the Magistrates Courts Rules 1981 (MCR) and the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (CPR) and Practice Direction 52E which supplements Part 52 of the CPR.

Information available needs standardising. Practice Direction 52E which is relevant to Civil Procedure Rules in a Case Stated appeal says at paragraph 2.1:

Application to state a case

2.1

The procedure for applying to the Crown Court or a Magistrates’ Court to have a case stated for the opinion of the High Court is set out in the Criminal Procedure Rules.

The Magistrates Courts Rules 1981 says the following which raises more questions:

Service of documents
80. Any document required by rules 76 to 79 to be sent to any person shall either be delivered to him or be sent by post in a registered letter or by recorded delivery service and, if sent by post to an applicant or respondent, shall be addressed to him at his last known or usual place of abode.

[Adamna]

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

Item 7d) is problematic (for them), they 'therefore considered £70 was an amount reasonably incurred..." with no information to make any consideration. 4b) confirms that.
Take care to bear in mind the basis of a case stated, it's not asking for an alternate opinion, but limited to a question of law. Note that the question they put forward is "were we entitled ... to order payment of the full amount". I'm not saying they were, just to focus on that question and not get sidetracked.

[outlawlgo]

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

Item 7d) is problematic (for them), they 'therefore considered £70 was an amount reasonably incurred..." with no information to make any consideration. 4b) confirms that.
Take care to bear in mind the basis of a case stated, it's not asking for an alternate opinion, but limited to a question of law. Note that the question they put forward is "were we entitled ... to order payment of the full amount". I'm not saying they were, just to focus on that question and not get sidetracked.

Going through all the papers before lodging the appeal and came across this in the "Relevant history of proceedings" section of my proposed consent order (paras 74-80), which I think is relevant:

"The Court’s decision

74. The Appellant had written to the court prior to the hearing referring to the DoE publication from 1993 requesting, in accordance with the document, that the court ‘question the reasonableness of [the Council’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’.

75. The Justices granted a liability order for the sum requested by NELC. The bench chair determined, after stating he had taken all the evidence into account, that the costs were reasonable. However, the evidence was not in the form of a breakdown of expenditure from which could be determined whether the costs were properly referable to the Regulations. NELC informed the court that they were not required to justify costs to the court and had never submitted a breakdown. The claim was simply defended in the first instant by describing generally what the costs covered, which was “Council Tax collection and recovery, IT systems, employment of staff and Her Majesty's Court Service for the use of their facilities”.

76. The Appellant highlighted NELC's letter advising the court that it had taken the decision to increase the summons costs to £70 (120% increase) and effectively front loading the liability order costs by no longer charging for them separately. NELC defended the decision on the grounds that the overall increase was 23%, as the summons had previously been £32 and liability order (not applied in all cases) £25 and compared the level with the national average for unitary authorities, which according to the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA) was £78.

77. The court queried why costs varied from one authority to another and asked why £70 was charged rather than £50 or £125 (like other places). NELC stated there are no prescribed costs for issuing a summons, but that they were simply agreed with the court, adding that £70 was the national average and that other regions might charge over a £100 – the £125 sum charged by LBH for issuing a summons was an example quoted. In concluding, it was stated that there was no requirement to justify the amount; the costs previously itemised were reiterated with the addition of postage costs to which the court responded rhetorically, ‘so the cost is reasonable’.

78. The Appellant contended that the costs should comply with reg 34 of the Regulations which provides for them to be applied proportionately in relation to the level of work carried out, i.e., split between the summons and liability order stage of recovery. The Justices' Clerk agreed and added that the set procedure included the issue of a demand notice and then later preparations for court. It was also contended that establishing the level of costs in consideration with what other billing authorities charged was not an acceptable way of setting them.

79. The Appellant’s belief that court costs were manipulated as a way of generating income was expressed. The opinion was supported from having obtained documents setting out costs reviews where invariably, increases had been proposed to generate income, or as a means of prompting earlier payment. None had contained details to support an increase in expenditure or that they had been reviewed because more costs were incurred.

80. As stated, the Justices granted NELC a liability order for the sum requested.

Post Magistrates’ court hearing

81. An application to state a case for an appeal to the high court was served on both parties, that is, NELC and Magistrates' Court, on 22.11.12 after it was advised that a Liability Order could only be challenged by an appeal to the High Court by way of either a case stated or a judicial review. Acknowledgment of the application was sent in a letter dated 22.11.12 advising that further contact would be made once the documentation had been considered.

82. .......