Council Tax Liability Order Applications Court Costs – Test Case

[outlawlgo]

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

This is almost certainly a revenue scam.; why no outrage

You would think with the significant amount of people having this disproportionate amount of money added in penalties to their council tax bills that there would be more outrage.

If everyone summonsed to the court actually turned up and demanded (as they are entitled) a hearing before the bench then a complete review of the approach would have to take place, i.e., taking a back seat to the council tax processing system.

Instead of relying on the process which is entirely automated, councils would have to make a conscious decision as to whether it is reasonable to exercises discretion in pursuing recovery through the Magistrates' court. The Council Tax Regulations in any event require that discretion is used.

[spirit2534]

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


This is almost certainly a revenue scam.; why no outrage

[outlawlgo]

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

HM Courts & Tribunal Service has forwarded the complaint about the Justices' Clerk to the Justices' Clerk to respond.


From: HMCTS Customer Service (Correspondence)
To: 'outlawlgo'
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2016
Subject: outlawlgo: Complaint - Grimsby Magistrate's court

Dear Mr outlawlgo

Thank you for your email.

I have forwarded your complaint to the Cluster Manager and Justices' Clerk and asked them to respond to you direct in line with HM Courts & Tribunals complaints procedure. Our team are only able to consider complaints at the 3rd stage of our complaints process. I appreciate that you have previously contacted the court but I must ensure they have an opportunity to respond to your complaint.

Further information on the complaints procedure can be found in the complaints leaflet 'EX343 - Unhappy with our service - what can you do?' :

http://hmctsformfinder.justice.gov.u...aflets_id=2781

Kind regards

Karen Warner | HM Courts & Tribunals Service | Customer Directorate

From: 'outlawlgo'
To: HMCTS Customer Service (Correspondence)
Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2016
Subject: Re: outlawlgo: Complaint - Grimsby Magistrate's court

Dear Ms Warner

I have not had any response from the Justices' Clerk, Alison Watts, regarding the complaint I sent on 25 June 2016. This comes at no surprise given her track-record in these matters.

Could you please advise on the appropriate action to take because the chances of this matter ever being addressed whilst the Justices' Clerk herself is responsible for investigating is zero as far as I'm concerned.

Yours sincerely

[Milo]

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

The very popular Freedom of Information website, What Do They Know has posted the following message on their website regarding the behaviour of Outlawlgo:

This user has been banned from WhatDoTheyKnow


They have been given the following explanation:


You have continued to use our service to make potentially defamatory allegations, despite repeated warnings.

PS: On their website, Outlawlgo is known as fFaudwAtch

[Milo]

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

It's looks as if you may have forgotten to post a copy of this response that you received last week from the Information Commissioners Office:


https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reque...#comment-73766

From: casework@ico.org.uk
To: fFaudwAtch UK@gmail.com
Sent: Friday, October 21, 2016
Subject: re Your FOI complaint to the ICO about North East Lincolnshire Council[Ref. FS50635343]

21st October 2016

Case Reference Number FS50635343

Dear [fFaudwAtch UK]

I am writing to you concerning your complaint to the ICO about your FOI request to North East Lincolnshire Council dated 9 June 2016 for information on:

“If Rossendales do in fact removed and sell any goods who will be liable for the theft?”

Your case has now been allocated to me to consider.

Unfortunately having considered your request we have determined that it is not a valid information request for the purposes of the Act. We will not therefore be able to take this complaint further. I will explain further.

As I understand your situation, you dispute liability for a debt which the council says you owe to it for unpaid council tax. The council has however sought and obtained a court order stating that the money is owed, and has therefore hired Rossendales to recover the money or alternatively to recover goods from your house to repay the debt. Your request asks the council who will be liable for the theft of your goods if they are removed and sold as part of the debt recovery because you dispute that any money is owed by you.

The Commissioner has issued guidance for those wishing to make a request for information under the Act at https://ico.org.uk/for-the-public/offici.... The Act provides a right to request information which is held by an authority in recorded form. The guidance states that “Your request can be in the form of a question, rather than a request for specific documents, but the authority does not have to answer your question if this would mean creating new information or giving an opinion or judgment that is not already recorded.”

Your request asks council to give an opinion or to make a judgement; you propose that Rossendales taking goods from your property would amount to a crime of theft, and ask the council to make a judgement as to who would be liable for that theft. The council is not required to respond to your request under the FOI Act unless that judgement is already held as recorded information.

Theft is a criminal offence in law. Only a court can actually decide whether an action amounts to theft and decide who is liable for that theft. The council has a court order stating the courts judgement that you owe the money to the council. We do not need to consider your arguments relating to the actual legality of the claim by the council in the first instance – the court has already made that decision and the Commissioner has no power to consider or overturn a court order. Unless a court overturns the court order then a removal of your goods from your property will not amount to theft providing all of the necessary legal and administrative procedures are carried out correctly. Insofar as the law is concerned, the council is entitled to take steps to recover money which a court has found is owed to it and this may include taking goods from your possession if a repayment is not made.

Your suggestion that theft would occur is therefore based upon a false premise. Regardless of whether you have a legal case for overturning the court order or not you have not currently done so. The council will not therefore hold any recorded information which demonstrates who is liable for theft – it will hold information relating to the debt it says is owed, and the legal and administrative measures it has taken to date to recover that debt.

In short therefore, your request asks the council to make a judgement on something it has no power to make a judgement over, and no recorded information will be held which can answer your request regarding theft.

Given this the Commissioner is not able to help you further with your request in this instance and your case has therefore been closed.

I am aware that you have other complaints open with the Commissioner. For the absence of doubt, the above only relates to the request for information which you have made to North East Lincolnshire Council dated 9 June 2016 as I have outlined above. The ICO will write to you separately regarding your other requests if it has not done so already.

I am sorry that we have not been able to help you further with your complaint in this instance.

Yours sincerely

Ian Walley
Senior Case Officer

[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

23 May 2016

........

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.
..........


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

Coincidentally at Page 30 of the Judicial Appointments & Conduct Ombudsman – Annual Report 2015-16, there is another recorded instance of a complainant not receiving the Magistrates’ Advisory Committee’s letter dismissing the complaint.

See Case Study five – Magistrates’ Advisory Committee

The Ombudsman understood that the complainant did not receive the AC’s letter dismissing his complaint, but he was content that the AC responded to the complainant’s query about progress, confirming that the matter had been dismissed and apologising that the letter had failed to reach him.

[outlawlgo]

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

Do you have that in writing? If you do go back him with the proof and re.ind him that an error of fact has been made. If use use "error in fact" and "error in law", you find you will get a better result as these phrases are used officially and don't put people's back up.

The Council was asked regarding a letter dated 16 September 2014 sent by the Justices' Clerk containing the below statement, if it would in compliance with subsection (1)(a) of s1 of the Freedom of Information Act, confirm or deny whether it held the final case stated:

"A certificate of refusal to state a case was not issued by the Justices because they did state a case for the consideration of the Administrative Court and the final case has been sent to you."

The Council responded as follows:

"Thank you for your information request reference 2916_1617. I can confirm that North East Lincolnshire Council does not hold the requested information."

[seduraed]

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

Do you have that in writing? If you do go back him with the proof and re.ind him that an error of fact has been made. If use use "error in fact" and "error in law", you find you will get a better result as these phrases are used officially and don't put people's back up.

[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

Three letters and the final "case stated" (detailed in above email) have been claimed to have been sent by the Justices' Clerk for Humber and South Yorks. None have been received and all the evidence points to these claims being fabricated. The Judicial Conduct Ombudsman (JACO), however, believes the fabricated version.

To reinforce my claim regarding the statement being untrue, i.e., that "the final case has been sent to you"

Pursuant to the Criminal Procedure Rules 2015 - Part 35 (Appeal to the High Court by Case Stated) at 35.3, subparagraph 9 (Preparation of case stated);

"the court officer must serve the case stated on each party.

A copy therefore would have been sent to North East Lincolnshire Council, however, the council has also confirmed that it has not been served the case.

[outlawlgo]

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

HM Courts & Tribunal Service has forwarded the complaint about the Justices' Clerk to the Justices' Clerk to respond.


From: HMCTS Customer Service (Correspondence)
To: 'outlawlgo'
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2016
Subject: outlawlgo: Complaint - Grimsby Magistrate's court

Dear Mr outlawlgo

Thank you for your email.

I have forwarded your complaint to the Cluster Manager and Justices' Clerk and asked them to respond to you direct in line with HM Courts & Tribunals complaints procedure. Our team are only able to consider complaints at the 3rd stage of our complaints process. I appreciate that you have previously contacted the court but I must ensure they have an opportunity to respond to your complaint.

Further information on the complaints procedure can be found in the complaints leaflet 'EX343 - Unhappy with our service - what can you do?' :

http://hmctsformfinder.justice.gov.u...aflets_id=2781

Kind regards

Karen Warner | HM Courts & Tribunals Service | Customer Directorate

[outlawlgo]

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

From: outlawlgo
To: Hanmer, Peter ; Res - Customer Services
Cc: various
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2016
Subject: Re: False statement to defraud through council tax liability application

Dear Mr Hanmer

It won't come as any surprise that I am completely dissatisfied with your response and consider it wholly unacceptable. Though I anticipated the council's dealing with the matter would be a sham, that makes it no less acceptable.

Of course, you provide no evidence whatsoever to support your decision because it would be impossible to do so as you are contending, without any grounds, the concrete evidence provided you which is not only beyond reasonable doubt but beyond all doubt.

The decision is simply indefensible and the fact that the guilty parties have been protected by the process is evident that the [redacted].

It is the role of the Council's Monitoring Officer to report on matters he believes are, or are likely to be illegal and is responsible to ensure that the Council, its Officers and elected members maintain the highest standards of conduct. Clearly by turning a blind eye in this matter he has failed in discharging his statutory duty, causing not only gross injustice to me as the taxpayer affected by continual harassment of officers pursuing a vendetta, but has also resulted in damaging the reputation of the Council.

Officers should not, but are being allowed to abuse their positions in pursuit of personal vendettas, costing hundreds of thousands of pounds of taxpayers money, over a relatively insignificant sum which in any event has been criminally engineered as a debt that is not owed by those officers purely for their own perverse satisfaction. There is no place within a local authority for individuals of this kind and it is of paramount importance that when such practices are highlighted, the person within the council with responsibility acts on the information by dismissing those guilty and has the matter reported to the police.

Separate but related issue

There is another failure of the Monitoring Officer discharging his statutory duty, which until now has not been dealt with, but nevertheless needs investigating as it has had a material impact on the present issues. The matter relates to 2013 when [redacted], as Monitoring Officer was the person responsible for ensuring that the Council's decision making was within the law.

Background

Grimsby Magistrates Court had been obstructing the progress of an application to state a case for an appeal to the high court in the matter of NELC's application for a council tax liability order. It was looking unlikely that the court would produce the document as was required for the case to continue because of the failure to cooperate.

In line with pre-action protocol for a claim for mandatory order, alternative remedies were suggested in an email to the Justices' Clerk with the council copied in on 6 February 2013 (see attached). In the case of the council, the remedy suggested was to apply to the Magistrates court under section 82 of the Local Government Act 2003 to either quash the liability order for £60 obtained on the 2nd November 2012, or apply for a lesser amount than that for which the original order was made that was equal to the sum that had already been paid (in respect of reasonable costs).

On 8 February 2013 (also attached) the council replied stating it was not prepared to apply to the Magistrates Court to quash the liability order as it claimed it had been correctly obtained.

I disputed this in a letter dated 14 February 2013 (attached) on the grounds that the application should have ceased when the aggregate of the sum outstanding and an amount equal to the costs reasonably incurred by the authority was paid. In any event, the letter dated 5 February 2013 attached the email (6 February 2013), pointed out that the court issued a liability order where there was no evidence on which the Magistrates could have found their decision. Consequently, one of the questions in law asked in the application was whether the costs being disputed as unreasonable should have been awarded by the court without evidence from the council to support them.

We now know that they shouldn't have; it was unlawful to award costs without proof of how they had been arrived at. This has been confirmed in the case between Tottenham Magistrates and the Reverend Paul Nicolson (see case attached). It was therefore incorrect for the council to state in its letter of 8 February 2013 that the liability order had been correctly obtained (See para 61 in R (Nicolson) v Tottenham Magistrates [2015] EWHC 1252 (Admin), attached):

" 61. 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; "

Moreover, the council has since produced a calculation which proves that expenditure it was claiming was not actually incurred by the council in respect of my case. It is evident from the breakdown that those costs were attributable to activities such as officers who engaged with customers (telephone calls etc) to negotiate payment arrangements and to monitor them, and therefore completely irrelevant to my case and unlawfully claimed.

It was the person appointed Monitoring Officer at that time who was responsible for the decision made not to apply to the Magistrates court as suggested in the pre-action protocol as informed in the 8 February 2013 letter on the basis that the liability order had been correctly obtained.

Consequences

This failure to apply lawful and proportionate decision making, hence not taking the correct remedy has led to years of injustice as it has enabled the Council to misallocate payment to the sum subject to appeal when payments have clearly been intended for the year's council tax account which was current when paid. Having balances outstanding for different years and the opportunity that has given the council to engineer payment arrears, this has led to recovery being taken through the court each year since with further costs added in the proceedings considered here. That in turn has led to time consuming and fruitless disputes i.e., formal complaints, escalation of issues to the LGO, police, police appeals and entering into a private prosecution against the police for negligence by improperly exercising police powers under Section 26 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015.

Objective

I would like in addition to having a proper response, with names of those involved in the investigation and findings properly documented, that this correspondence serves as a formal complaint about the Chief Executive, Monitoring Officer and all others involved in the investigation process. Naturally as my complaint alleges irregularity, my expectation is that in accordance with the Council's 'Fraud Response Plan' the matter is referred to the Audit, Risk, Insurance and Corporate Fraud team immediately on receipt, despite those who may be referred the matter being some of the officers (elected members) who are the complaint's focus.

Yours sincerely

EDIT: Posted on incorrect thread but is related

[outlawlgo]

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

Complaints, Correspondence and Litigation Team
1st Floor, Post Point 1.4
102 Petty France
London
SW1H 9AJ

25 June 2016

Dear Sir/Madam

Re: Failure responding to correspondence regarding delivery of ‘case stated’

I understand my complaint should in the first instance be made to the Court Manager; however, the concerns I wish to raise have been ongoing since November 2012 and relate to the court failing to reply, so consider it valid that it is escalated now to the Complaints Handling Team. The complaint surrounds a disputed order made against me by Justices at Grimsby Magistrate’s court which led to an application to the court to state a case for an appeal to the high court.

I have been unable to obtain the case stated, despite making numerous attempts. It is this failure that has prevented the appeal that was instituted on 22 November 2012 from proceeding to the High Court to this day.

The injustice caused extends far beyond that set out in this complaint and so consider it just preliminary information to get an investigation underway. It is intended, on agreement with the team to forward details of the issues that have arisen as a result of the gross failure to enable a comprehensive investigation to be carried out.

Those issues predominantly concern North East Lincolnshire Council misallocating payment to the sum subject to appeal when payment was clearly intended for the year’s council tax account which was current when paid. As the council has been able to engineer payment arrears this has led to recovery being taken through the court each year since with further costs added in the most recent proceedings. That in turn has led to time consuming and fruitless disputes i.e., formal complaints, escalation of issues to the LGO, police, police appeals and entering into a private prosecution against the police for negligence by improperly exercising police powers under Section 26 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015.

The issues, as far as those directly relating to HMCTS are evident from the correspondence compiled chronologically appended to this letter, which is referable to the draft document (chronology) prepared for, and intended to be part of the High Court papers for the case stated appeal.

It will be evident on reading the account that the cause of the gross injustice which has protracted so far over roughly three and a half years has been the unwillingness and refusal of the court to cooperate, which in some cases has involved more seriously lying.

Key points

Initial delay

There was no contact made when the Deputy Justices’ Clerk who was initially dealing with the application left HMCTS toward the end of 2012. After several weeks having no update, enquiries were made to find out why there was no progress being made and it was only on this prompt that I was made aware that the Deputy Justices’ Clerk was no longer employed by HMCTS.

Unnecessary Claim for mandatory order

The failure to deal with queries about the recognizance which the Magistrates set at £500 resulted in gross injustice as I had to research judicial review procedures (mandatory order) as it was not reasonable that I appoint a legal professional. It was only by doing this and when the judicial review claim was underway that the Magistrates' Court admitted in the Acknowledgement of Service that 'the question of the appropriateness of the recognizance and/or the amount could have been considered by the court'. Simply answering my correspondence would have meant making the claim for judicial review was not necessary.

Unanswered correspondence to obtain final case

Various correspondence going unanswered from 19 August 2013 when representations were made on the draft case, up until the Justices' Clerk finally made contact on 6 March 2014 stating that either that day or the following the position regarding the case (advising on the next steps) would be set out in writing. Even with that undertaking there was no communication advising on the next steps. Subsequent attempts to find out what was happening elicited no response.

A letter sent 22 April 2014 requested the production of a Certificate of refusal to state a case under section 111(5) of the Magistrates Court's Act 1980 but was never answered, neither was an email sent 9 July 2014 to enquire into whether HMCTS had any arrangements in place to restrict my contact with the court.

Judicial complaint to Humber Advisory Committee

Having no response until 23 February 2016 to a judicial complaint dated 2 September 2014 to the Advisory Committee which was obtained only after engaging the Judicial Conduct Ombudsman. It is claimed that the matter was dealt with on 16 September 2014 and stated that a Certificate of refusal to state a case was not issued by the Justices because the final case was sent to me. Despite this, a copy which has been requested has not been sent nor has the Justices’ Clerk’s undertaking to inform me of the matter by 15 April 2016 been acted on.

Yours sincerely

outlawlgo

[outlawlgo]

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

How can they still think that "As the Regulations allow for costs of collection and recovery to be recovered where costs are sought".

Well spotted. Although argued in my response to the Auditor that the regulations were being misrepresented by considering that they allowed the costs incurred for Council Tax collection and recovery, I didn't pick up on the fact that even the Auditor considers, and stated that these were permissible.

[Adamna]

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

It took them almost 6 months to provide the brush off?!
How can they still think that "As the Regulations allow for costs of collection and recovery to be recovered where costs are sought".
Oh dear.

[outlawlgo]

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

From: [outlawlgo]
To: Prentice, John (KPMG)
Cc: Wroot, Sharon
Sent: Monday, June 13, 2016
Subject: Re: North East Lincolnshire Council - council tax summons costs

Dear Mr Prentice,

Declaration of unlawful account and report in the public interest

Thank you for your response to my correspondence requesting that KPMG apply to the court for a declaration that an item of account is contrary to law. I do however consider that the wishes of Parliament conferring power to the courts etc., is not an appropriate 'get out' for justifying being let off the hook concerning making the application.

Appropriateness of establishing the legal powers

Sub-paragraph 2(a) of section 28 of the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014 provides for the court to make or refuse to make the declaration asked for and therefore the mere fact that court proceedings in relation to the matter have gone ahead where costs have been awarded does not preclude the auditor making an application. Although you assert that my case has previously been put before the Magistrates' and High Court, It should be pointed out that the High Court has made no ruling because the Magistrates Court has and continues to obstruct the appeal proceeding for reasons I can only assume.

Notwithstanding that the Magistrates' court on two previous occasions has awarded the council these costs, there was no evidence in either case that the representations submitted had been properly considered. However, all of this is largely academic because the application to the court for the relevant declaration concerns the council unlawfully accounting for expenditure associated with Council Tax Enforcement and Recovery (the "cost of the service") and substituting that for its Summons cost calculation. The matter first and foremost concerns the auditor's duty to act on information highlighting accounts which are misrepresented, so it should not be a consideration that if doing so there is identified something which the courts should be aware of. It therefore can not possibly be conceived how the matter can be considered without reference to the relevant laws.

Council's website description

I note your recommendation to the council to amend its website regarding the reference to the costs being determined based on comparisons with the fees charged by neighbouring councils etc. It is also noted that the council has removed the statement giving information that 'a check is made to ensure that the monies raised from applying costs are not greater than the actual cost of the service'. In its place it states that 'the figure is determined by a realistic estimate of the work dedicated to the application of a liability order'. It is one thing to claim administrative error in the matter relating to the recommended change but a gross misrepresentation to alter the description from the 'cost of the service' to the cost 'dedicated to the application of a liability order'.

The cost of the service, from numerous references has been confirmed to relate to ‘the costs reasonably incurred for Council Tax collection and recovery’ which is a much broader budget that encompasses the work dedicated to the application of a liability order. That being the case the new wording on the council's website can only have credibility if there's a corresponding change in the "Summons cost calculation" to reflect it. The cost of the service must include expenditure attributable to instituting the summons but only as a small element of the aggregate amount and so the idea of ensuring income is kept within this budget is misconceived as a measure of what might be lawful to make up its Summons cost calculation.

The Court hasn't the necessary knowledge of the council's accounts

The court has made no proper judgment regarding the costs, and if it had, it would be a neglect of duty for the auditor to be 'silent' whilst advantaged with superior insight into the accounts and benefiting additionally from researched information. The auditor in any event would not be making a judicial decision but be presenting evidence based on his own area of professional expertise which the court would be best advantaged to justify making the declaration asked for. It would have to be questioned why a provision exist in law for an auditor, clearly better equipped than the court to assess the accounts, if not to provide the best opportunity for the court to make a ruling.

Conventionally when determining costs for the successful party, the court broadly need only consider the amount paid for legal representation and therefore an invoice of those expenses forms the basis on which the court is able to decide a sum. The position is not so black and white for Council Tax liability applications where an in-depth knowledge of a billing authority's accounts is required to facilitate a proper determination of the costs and to ensure that they are properly referable to the enabling regulations. To reiterate what I have previously stated, those regulations restrict the amount claimed in respect of the summons to expenditure incurred by the Council for instituting the complaint and must not include any of the additional expenditure attributed to the application/obtaining of a liability order, or other expenditure, like for example enforcing the order after it has been granted by the court. Merely changing the description on it's website without appropriately amending its Summons cost calculation does not legitimise the accounts.

Unlawful account

Having established it inappropriate to consider the matter without reference to the relevant laws, the criteria upon which you have considered the concerns essentially requires amending to include various submissions, for example my 27 December 2015 email, the referred to content in the Grounds of Appeal document and a number of correspondence I sent in 2012 bearing reference NG/CTR/12912.

After doing so, it could no longer simply be claimed to be a policy matter whether or not the Council seeks to recover further costs for instituting an application for a liability order, because asserting that was based on the assumption that additional expenditure attributed to the application/obtaining the order was waived which would in turn have to rely on certain misconceptions, those being that the;

i) gross recoverable expenditure attributable to the costs was permissible

ii) further work attributed to obtaining the liability order was not arbitrarily estimated, merely to justify charging all costs up front

iii) average costs do not include subsidy for bad debt arising from waived or unrecoverable costs

iv) costs do not include subsidy for administration expenditure arising from setting up payment plans, dealing with queries etc.

v) claimed costs do not include any element attributable to the expenditure of enforcing the order after it is obtained

Upon proper consideration it could only logically be concluded that expenditure which is not referable to the regulations is included in the accounts, especially given that the council's aim is to ensure no cost of recovery is borne by the taxpayer. It is clear that the gross recoverable expenditure is on the whole attributed to debtors who take up resources by engaging staff in matters connected with their payment difficulties. Those customers are generally the ones having their costs waived or avoid them due to payment plans being set up, yet the cost of arranging and monitoring of them thereafter is what makes up the costs which are recoverable through the summons. In general terms it is those debtors driving the activity who are not incurring costs, but being paid for by those who don't engage staff and consequently at an inflated amount.

I appreciate it is a difficult position for the auditor having on the one hand a public duty to ensure that the residents of North East Lincolnshire are not caused a detriment financially because of misrepresented accounts and on the other, having to be mindful that the council holds the decision whether or not a contract will be terminated or renewed.

Yours sincerely