Council Tax Liability Order Applications Court Costs – Test Case

[outlawlgo]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q41 Mr Llwyd: That already exists.

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

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

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

[enquirer]

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

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

[outlawlgo]

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

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

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

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

[enquirer]

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

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

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

[outlawlgo]

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

North East Lincolnshire council has finally got round to posting its warning of bailiff action (again); it had already done this in a letter dated 5 November 2012 (Post #33 of this thread). It threatens to send round bailiffs if the alleged outstanding council tax debt (£60) is not paid within 14 days.

The council has already had a reply to its first threat of bailiff action – letter dated 8 November 2012 (Post #37 of this thread)

"....You go on and threaten to instruct bailiffs to visit me if I don’t pay the full amount within the next 14 days. I believe your enforcement contractor for this type of activity is Rossendales.

I will attempt to save you some time and effort by informing you that this amount will not be paid, neither in part nor in full, ever, and if it is your decision to appoint NELC’s opportunist enforcement contractor I guarantee they will not obtain a single penny of the amount you are trying to thieve from me.

I know with 100% certainty that this firm is crooked and have evidence that NELC have abetted the systematic fraud of its residents by using Rossendales.

If there is any evidence that these criminals are on my case, I will, without hesitation be reporting both Rossendales and North East Lincolnshire council to Humberside Police’s Economic crime section."

Interestingly the Clerk to the Justices has not corresponded further since it acknowledged my application for the Magistrates' court to state a case in an appeal to the High Court. The application and court's written acknowledgement was 22 November 2012 (exactly one month ago).

[outlawlgo]

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

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


Ref: NG/CTR/12912

22 December 2012


Dear Debt Recovery Officer

Re: Threat of Bailiff Action – Account 550xxxxxxx

I’ve received a second letter this morning from NELC stating if I don’t pay the full amount (£60) of my Council Tax debt within the next 14 days, instructions will be passed to the council’s appointed bailiff company to recover the outstanding debt. The first letter threatening this was 5 November 2012.

Please refer to my letter of 8 November 2012 sent to the council’s Income and Payments Manager. The same still stands if there is any evidence these criminals have visited my home.

I am curious however, to know why NELC considers appointing Rossendales to my case will result in further costs for me (in excess of £150 as per your letter), or that your contractor would have the slightest chance of seizing and selling my possessions.

I have been reliably informed there is no law which says you must deal with Rossendales. Considering that then, it would be entirely foolish if I allowed myself to be tricked into opening the door to one of their bailiffs. Ignoring them completely, would be the most sensible thing to do and ensure they didn’t get the chance to enter into a walking possession agreement or levy goods.

If I did have outstanding debt, I would pay it directly to the council but as the money for which NELC is pursuing is the authority’s fraudulent demand for court costs, this is irrelevant. Of course, in theory I could pay the outstanding sum via the bailiff firm, but I believe in these circumstances, the contractor takes his fees as a priority to the debt owed to the council. Therefore the council would see none of it and the only one benefiting from the council’s recovery would be a private firm exploiting the taxpayer and government.


Yours sincerely

[outlawlgo]

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

An update:

Something tells me HMCTS have got the hump. The following email was first sent two weeks ago to the Deputy Justices' Clerk, dealing with the appeal. That mail, and several other subsequent attempts to send it, all correspondingly returned a 'delivery failure' notice. An alternative HMCTS contact returned an automated 'out of Office' mail with notification to contact the Justices' Clerk. This was done twice with no acknowledgement whatsoever.

From: outlawlgo
Sent: 28 December 2012
To: Deputy Justices Clerk
Subject: Re: Council Tax Liability Order - G45G04/MD/AW


Dear Mr .....

Are you able to up-date me with any developments in regards my application for the Magistrates' court to state a case in an appeal to the High Court.

My application was submitted on 22 November 2012, and although I've received acknowledgement for this there has been no other correspondence. Nothing for example informing me whether the court has agreed to proceed, nor a certification stating that the application has been refused.

Yours sincerely

What's more, the officer from the Audit Commission looking into fraud allegations made about North East Lincolnshire council has also stopped acknowledging correspondence.

Would it be premature to suspect the respective government departments are closing ranks?

[alham]

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

I think you are beginning to rattle a few cages. Be careful!

[erathaf]

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

Hi

There are so many people being taken to court for late instalment payment of Council Tax. I have started an e-petition to get the Government to look at this unfair practice. For example, my local authority, Basildon Council raised £402,705 just this financial year and it is not even over yet. Here is their response to the question I asked from Freedom of Information (FOI) regarding extra revenue raised from summonses:

How much extra revenue has been raised as a result of summonses being issued for non-payment of Council Tax?
How much extra revenue has been raised as a result of summonses for late payment of Council Tax?
Costs of £45 are charged for each summons that is issued. However, so far this financial year we have withdrawn 996 cases prior to the court hearing. These 996 cases will not be charged the £45 costs. Therefore the net costs raised are £402,705. However, not all of those costs will be recovered.

That is a huge amount of money, costing further financial hardship to many families.

When asked:
How many summonses have been issued this financial year for non-payment of council tax?
How many summonses have been issued this financial year for late payment of council tax?
The regulations do not distinguish between customers who have paid some of their Council Tax and those that have paid none. We have issued 9945 summonses in total since 1 April 2012.


Please click on the link below and sign the e-petition to stop this unfair practice.
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/43663

Many thanks and lets hope we can make a change.

Erathaf

[outlawlgo]

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

....Please click on the link below and sign the e-petition to stop this unfair practice.
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/43663

Many thanks and lets hope we can make a change.

Erathaf

Done! The petition is signed.

You've expressed some excellent points in the petition about this legalised extortion racket, especially in regards the wording of the Summons document.

I totally agree, if you're paying you council tax it's inaccurate to state on the document 'Summons for Non-Payment of Council Tax', and like you say it should state ‘Summons for Late-Payment of instalments of Council Tax’.

You see propaganda on an almost daily basis in local rags where journalists – let loose on Freedom of Information missions – obtain statistics which they then irresponsibly publish with no balanced reporting. You know the sort of thing – £Xmillion Council Tax goes uncollected which would otherwise fund caring for the elderly. Y-thousand liability orders obtained in the Magistrates' court to collect £Zthousand from Tax Dodgers. All this turns gullible readers, having no understanding of the figures, insane with rage.

The odd thing is, the same authorities having £millions of uncollected debt, typically have successfully collected Council Tax rates of 99%, with most of the 1% uncollected, being attributable to people who have passed away or moved to another part of the world etc.

What they always omit from these PR stunts is to tell you how much of the "so called" debt progressed through the courts, would actually have been paid regardless of recovery action.

How much of the quoted non-payment is money owed purely as a consequence of instalment facilities being cancelled? Authorities are unfortunately permitted to do this because of flawed Council Tax legislation, but whichever way you look at it, this element of alleged outstanding money owed would not technically be outstanding debt. Councils just create a temporary debt by demanding the entire liability at once by cancelling instalments.

Householders struggling to hit instalment dates will have been pushed into paying the entire council tax in one go and consequently forced into paying additional fees for court costs and bailiffs when they obviously struggled in the first place.

In these cases, the majority of the money would have been paid by the end of the financial year despite court action and bailiff enforcement. Perhaps the reason they don't want to change things is because each council can make at least a couple of hundred thousand pounds a month in court costs.

[outlawlgo]

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

An update.

No evidence yet that North East Lincolnshire council's appointed bailiff has been instructed to collect the £60 it thinks I owe.

If you don't pay the full amount within 14 days of the date of this letter (19 December 2012) I will pass instructions to the Council's appointed bailiff company (Rossendales) to recover the outstanding debt. This means the bailiff will come to your home or business with a view to seizing and selling your possessions. If this happens you will have to pay costs, which may be more than £150.00 and will be added to your outstanding debt.

A reply (January 14) from the Legal Team Manager at Grimsby Magistrates' court explained why the Deputy Justices' Clerk, dealing with my appeal, did not receive my emails:

From: Legal Team Manager
To: outlawlgo
Sent: January 14, 2013
Subject: Application re liability order

Dear Mr ......,

I have recently been passed your email regarding the above matter.

Mr Xxxxx left the service at the end of last year and his email account will now have been closed down.

I shall try to find out what is happening with your application and update you as soon as I can.

Yours sincerely,

Legal Team Manager

Nothing heard so emailed yesterday for an update.

From: outlawlgo
To: Legal Team Manager
Sent: January 25, 2013
Subject: Re: Application re liability order

Dear Mr ......

Thank you for your 14 January 2013 email. Could you please up-date me with any further information you hold regarding my application. In addition, could you supply the names of two Magistrates sitting on the Bench (identifying the Chair) in respect of the council tax liability order hearing on 2nd November 2012.

The information is required as I intend to submit two separate complaints; one to HMCTS in respect of how these liability order hearings are conducted and another to the local Advisory Committee, specifically in relation to the Magistrate chairing the hearing.

Yours sincerely

[outlawlgo]

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

A further correspondence was received through the post this morning in regards the appeal.

HM Courts
& Tribunals
Service

Justices' Clerk for Humber & South Yorkshire
Doncaster Magistrates' Court
PO Box 49, The Law Courts
College Road
DONCASTER DN1 3HT

24 January 2013

Dear Mr .......

Re: North East Lincolnshire Council v Yourself

Grimsby Magistrates' Court

Application to State a Case

Thank you for your email correspondence in connection with this matter.

Mr Xxxx has now left the employment of HMCTS and your matter has been escalated to me. I shall be grateful if all future correspondence in this matter is forwarded to me at my office in Doncaster to avoid any unnecessary delays.

Further to your application to state a case I have now discussed the matter with the Justices who adjudicated upon your case.

Further to section 114 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 the Justices are not required to state a case until the applicant has entered into a recognizance to prosecute the appeal without delay and to submit to the judgment of the High Court.

Accordingly, the Justices require you to enter into a recognizance in the sum of £500.00. If entered into, the recognizance would be subject to forfeiture if after delivery of the case stated the applicant failed to prosecute the appeal.

Entering into a recognizance is in effect a promise to pay a sum of money (in your case £500.00) in the event you decide not to pursue your appeal in the High Court. When you enter into the recognizance (ie make the promise to pay) you are not required to pay any money, and provided you take your case to the High Court you will not be liable to pay £500.00. However, in the event you decide not to take your appeal to the High Court you may be required to pay some, or indeed all of the amount of the recognizance.

Until the recognizance is entered into, the Justices will not state a case for the consideration of the High Court.

The recognizance must be entered into before the magistrates' court at Grimsby and I would be grateful if you would make contact with my office at Doncaster in order to make the necessary arrangements for this to take place.
Yours sincerely

Justices' Clerk

[outlawlgo]

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

Doncaster Magistrates Court
The Law Courts
College Road
Doncaster
DN1 3HT

05 February 2013


Dear Mrs Xxxx

Re: Application to State a Case – Grimsby Magistrates’ Court

Thank you for outlining the next steps and clarifying that the agreement for the justices to state a case is conditional on entering into recognizance. However, there are some points I would like clarifying, one being the terms of the recognizance detailed in your letter appear not strictly in accordance with section 114 of the MCA 1980.

Your letter implies the case would be delivered without payment as the recognizance would be subject to forfeiture only upon failure to prosecute the appeal. This appears relevant only to a criminal matter as Section 114 draws a distinction for such a case. In non-criminal matters “a justices' clerk shall not be required to deliver the case to the applicant until the applicant has paid the fees payable for the case and for the recognizances to the designated officer for the court.”

It is also conditioned under the same to pay any High Court costs which that Court may award, whilst in your letter it is unclear whether the recognizance would include this.

On an application to state a case for the opinion of the High Court, the fees listed as payable under schedule 1 of the Magistrates’ Courts Fees Order are £500. It also states that where this is payable, no further fee is payable in respect of the preparation of a draft case by the justices’ clerk for taking recognizance.

The justices – once deciding that a recognizance is necessary – must take the applicant's means into account in setting the amount. A completed EX160 form accompanied my application to the Magistrates’ court to state the case (22 November 2012). The supporting papers detailing my gross annual income provided evidence that this was substantially below the set level, and so qualified for full remission of the Magistrates’ court fee.

It is therefore illogical that by completing form EX160 (effectively means tested) I qualified for full remission of the £500 Magistrates’ court fee, whilst the justices, after presumably taking my means into account, concluded that the recognizance should be £500. Setting such a fee in these circumstances could be seen as a denial of access to the Courts.

It is noted that since the appeal was lodged, the court has taken two months to make contact on this issue. I was not notified that Mr Xxxxx had left the service and his email account closed down, until I’d prompted the court. I therefore have concerns that this application would have been overlooked completely if the failure to correspond had not been queried.

I have further concerns about who would be landed the task of preparing the draft case as it was Mr Xxxxx – no longer in the employ of HMCTS – who was in attendance and advisor to the justices on the day of my hearing. It would also appear that an unusually high turn over, either through reorganisation or redundancies has left the Grimsby Magistrates’ court lacking any staff to fulfill the role of justices’ clerk.

Although the current Criminal Procedure Rules are unclear whether a time limit applies, 64.2 of the 2011 rules specifies that a draft case shall be sent to all parties within 21 days after receipt of an application. That is of course unless the justices refuse to state a case under section 111(5) of the MCA 1980. That has not happened, as requiring recognizance conditioned to prosecute the appeal, does not constitute a refusal to state a case.

Aside from the above I have to assume that – if not frivolous – the justices consider the application lacking in merit or have concerns that the appeal may not be pursued, and is why they have made their agreement to state a case conditional on entering into a recognizance.

Regardless of whether justices agree to state the case, it still remains that the court issued a liability order where there was no evidence on which the Magistrates could have found their decision. Consequently North East Lincolnshire Council has threatened to recover, through their bailiffs, the amount specified on the order, despite there being no supporting evidence put before the magistrates.

I will therefore make a suggestion that the court considers the possibility of reopening the case under the provision of Section 142 of the MCA 1980 to rectify the mistake and set aside the liability order. I’m aware Magistrates’ court’s powers are purely statutory and s.142 applies only to reopening criminal cases, however, I believe the authority to set aside liability orders has now been established as a common law principle developed in case law.

There is also the possibility that the local authority apply under section 82 of the Local Government Act 2003 to have the liability order quashed. I will put this to the council and suggest they do this or apply for a lesser amount than that for which the original order was made. Perhaps the amount already paid, i.e., reasonable costs.

Yours sincerely

[outlawlgo]

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

From: outlawlgo
Sent: 06 February 2013
To: Local Taxation & Benefits Shared Service Manager
Subject: Re: Application to State a Case - Grimsby Magistrates' Court


Dear Ms ......

Re: Section 82 of the Local Government Act 2003 – Application to quash liability order

You will see from the attached that the justices dealing with my application to state a case to the High Court are exercising their rights under section 114 of the Magistrates' court Act 1980 and requiring I enter into recognizance in the sum of £500.

The supporting papers accompanying my application to state a case have provided evidence that my gross annual income is substantially below the set level, and so qualified for full remission of the Magistrates’ court fee (£500). Consequently, setting an additional fee of £500 in these circumstances is effectively denying my access to the Courts.

I have explained in the attached that I will be contacting the council to seek an alternative remedy, should the recent obstacles put in the way of the application, not be overcome.

I'm therefore requesting that North East Lincolnshire council 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. Perhaps the £10 already paid, i.e., reasonable costs.

Yours sincerely


outlawlgo


P.S. I have had no contact from your bailiffs Rossendales since the council threatened in a letter dated 19 December 2012 to instruct them within 14 days. Do I take it that NELC have not and will not be instructing its bailiff contractor to enforce the sum of £60 and the council consider the amount no longer owed.

[three rivers of corruption]

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

So have you submitted form N244 and EX160 (fee remision) applying to the magistrates court to have the liability order set aside ?