Council Tax Liability Order Applications Court Costs – Test Case

[Crazy council]

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

colin oxley his name, i dealt with him. He was under Anne Seex http://ombudsmanwatchers.org.uk/ombuds/anne_seex.html at the york office of the lgo.

we should get ours heads together and give him some numbers

In addition, the very issue on which you have based your entire complaint and the legal undertakings which you have become involved in amounts to some £60 only. The Ombudsman provides a free service but she must use public resources carefully. Had your complaint been in jurisdiction on the above mentioned grounds it still leaves a serious question as to whether the injustice which you would have claimed at the time in 2012 would warrant investigation. Clearly you have gone to some considerable expense in time and money since then but this was your own choice.

60 * 10,000 per year, since 2005 ( rounded for ease ) since 2005 ( 10 years ) 6 million, owed back to public just from out backwater council.

( proper costs of liability orders, goes between £ 8 and £ 17 over the 10 years , and that is as accurately accounted for as possible, ), its currently between £12-13 at nelc.

further, am fairly sure the documentation between the monitoring officer, and the court, is insufficient between 2008-sept 2013 in relation to the charges for LOs, theres some technical requirements in the rules on the documentation that havent been done properly.

[outlawlgo]

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

Local Govermnent
OMBUDSMAN

9 February 2016

Mr outlawlgo

Your ref:
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 4034279
email address: C.Oxley@coinweb.lgo.org.uk

Dear Mr outlawlgo

Complaint against North East Lincolnshire Council

The Ombudsman has asked me to assess your complaint to see if it is about a matter we can or should investigate.

Based on the information I currently have which includes the papers you sent me and the remaining details of your previous complaint to us, my current view is that we cannot investigate your complaint.

Your complaint concerns the reasonableness of costs added to your council tax account following the serving of a summons in September 2012 and the issue of a liability order by the Magistrates court in November 2012. You disputed the validity of the costs and paid £10 which you considered a reasonable reflection of the true cost. You also contest the court’s decision to grant the liability order.

You have pursued an appeal to the High Court about this matter but say that to date you have not had the success which you sought. This has led to considerable expense of time and money. I have read your views on the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and why you feel that that it is still possible to investigate your complaint against the Council. I must inform you at this stage that this is something of a simplification of the Ombudsman’s role and that there are several reasons why we would not investigate this matter now.

With regard to time you feel that delays by the court led to your complete complaint being delayed in 2015 but that it falls approximately within the 12 month cut off. In fact your entire complaint stems from the Council’s decision to charge a summons fee which you disputed in 2012 and which led to the liability order. The time limit to which you refer in your letter relating to section 26(4) of the Local Government Act (now 26(B)) relates to when the person affected became aware of the alleged fault in question. This is certainly the actions of September/November 2012, which led to your original complaint to the LGO in May 2013. Whilst your original complaint was within the 12 month time period allowed for a complaint, it was nearly four years from where we are now.

It is likely that had you come back with your complaint which was considered premature within the few months required for a reply, it would have been rejected as it concerned a point of law. You have referred to the Ombudsman’s special report on bailiff’s fees and their reasonableness. The matter which you have raised is more complex and is complicated by it being accepted by the Magistrate’s Court.

In addition, the very issue on which you have based your entire complaint and the legal undertakings which you have become involved in amounts to some £60 only. The Ombudsman provides a free service but she must use public resources carefully. Had your complaint been in jurisdiction on the above mentioned grounds it still leaves a serious question as to whether the injustice which you would have claimed at the time in 2012 would warrant investigation. Clearly you have gone to some considerable expense in time and money since then but this was your own choice.

Any member of the public who receives a relatively minor penalty for dog-fouling or parking violations may either pay the penalty or challenge its validity in the courts. The risk is that the eventual outcome may be unsuccessful but the cost may be significantly greater than the original penalty. The fact that this matter is unresolved some four years after the event is due to your own decision to continue pursuit of an outcome at the High Court. For the LGO the matter would have been outside jurisdiction some years ago and had you resubmitted your 2013 complaint promptly this would have been made clear to you at the time. It may also have been considered to be of insufficient injustice to warrant an investigation.

Before I make any decision, I should welcome your comments on what I say in this letter. If you do wish to comment, please ensure that I receive your response by 18 February. If I have heard nothing by then, I will make a formal decision not to investigate your complaint for the reasons explained above. If you need more time to comment, please explain why this is and I will consider your request.

Yours sincerely

Colin Oxley
Investigator

[Adamna]

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

Another case won in the High Court (council tax liability order costs).

Ewing v Highbury Corner Magistrates Court & Anor [2015] EWHC 3788

Interesting stuff. That link doesn't seem to be working. This did http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/...2015/3788.html

[outlawlgo]

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

IN THE MATTER OF COMPLAINT TO THE
LOCAL GOVERNMENT OMBUDSMAN UNDER
THE PROVISION OF PART III OF THE LOCAL
GOVERNMENT ACT 1974

21 January 2016

(postponed from January 2015)

COMPLAINT AGAINST
NORTH EAST LINCOLNSHIRE COUNCIL

Supporting documents (“SD”) listed below are in the order first referred to in this complaint. It is important that all are to hand, and a copy requested in the case of any missing document:

LIST OF SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS (SD)
(in order of occurrence in complaint)

No#	DATE	DESCRIPTION	FILE NAME
1	19/7/13	Bailiff fee fraud allegations (FOI data redemption fees)	FOI data 19 July 2013.pdf
2	24/7/13	Bailiff fee fraud allegations (FOI data vehicle fees)	FOI data 24 July 2013.pdf
3	15/3/14	Formal Complaint	Formal Complaint – 15 March 14.pdf
4	14/7/14	Formal Complaint (supplementary letter	Formal Complaint – 15 March (14 July) 14.pdf
5	15/9/14	Councils Final Decision to formal complaint	Council response 15 Sept 2014.pdf
6	June 2013	Guidance to local councils on good practice in the collection of Council Tax arrears	Guidance on enforcement of CT arrears.pdf
7	22/4/14	Request for certificate of refusal to state a case for an appeal to the high court	Cert - refusal to state case 22 April 2014.pdf
8	Various	Letters to head of revenues -Auditor - evidence for Magistrates’ court between 16 September – 17 October 2012 reference: NG/CTR/12912	Evidence 16 Sept – 17 Oct 2012.pdf
9	22/11/12	Application to state a case for an appeal to the high court	Application to appeal to high court.pdf
10	–	Chronology of events (case bundle draft document – high court application)	Chronology draft.pdf
11	8/2/13	Refusal to apply to have court order quashed	20130208 NELC.pdf
12	14/2/13	Disputing order was correctly obtained	T – S & L Order Feb 14 2013.pdf
13	28/7/14	Formal Complaint (escalate to final stage)	Formal Complaint – 15 March (28 July) 14.pdf
14	21/2/11	Explanatory Memorandum to The Council Tax and Non-Domestic Rating (Amendment) (Wales) Regulations 2011	Explanatory Memorandum Regulations 2011.pdf
15	17/2/14	Review court costs to mitigate risk of exceeding expenditure and being legally challenged	Review of Council Tax court costs.pdf
16	–	Leicester City Council’s court costs calculation 2011-12	Costs calc 2011 12 Leicester.xls
17	April 09/10	South Gloucestershire Council’s costs calculation 2009 and 2010	SGC cost calculation 09 and 10.TIF
18	–	Great Yarmouth Borough Council’s costs Calculation 2014-15	Court Costs increase 2014 15.xls
19	5/9/13	Business Rates summons fraud	Business Rates summons fraud 05 Sept 2013.pdf
20	19/8/13	Draft case stated for appeal to the high court and Representations made on the case	Case stated Draft representation.pdf
21	20/9/12	Refusal to correspond further	20120920 NELC.pdf
22	–	Grounds of appeal (case bundle draft document – high court application)	Grounds of appeal.pdf
23	–	Consent Order (case bundle draft document – high court application)	Consent order.pdf
24	–	Skeleton Argument (case bundle draft document – high court application)	Skeleton Argument draft.pdf
25	6/5/15	High court Judgment in the matter of an appeal of Council Tax court summons costs	R (on the application of Reverend Nicolson) v Tottenham Magistrates.doc
26	2/9/14	Complaint to Advisory Committee (Magistrates / Justices Clerk’s conduct)	Judicial complaint 2 Sept 2014.pdf

Introduction

1. This is a complaint under the provision of Part III of the Local Government Act 1974 (the “Act”) against North East Lincolnshire Council (“NELC”) being an Authority subject to investigation pursuant to section 25 of the Act.

2. The concerns raised in this complaint are matters of general public importance including issues concerning the Ministry of Justice, for which the LGO has no direct jurisdiction. 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.

3. .......

.......

What do you think the body should do to put things right?

......

167. As it is unlikely these failings are unique to NELC, it would mitigate the sense of aggrievement in respect of the inordinate amount of time that has been wasted, if lessons learned from this complaint are also learned by all local authorities and other government departments which similarly cause hardship for members of the public. Considering the destructive effect such failings can have on people’s lives (including health), there would be merit in debating in parliament the difficulties members of the public face dealing with public bodies (see below para 171).

168. The outcome is not one that is solely seeking to resolve the issues. It is also reasonable that an offer is made for compensation. However, any consolatory payment, whatever level will go nowhere near a realistic sum to compensate for the hundreds of hours spent as a consequence of these circumstances over a period which is over three years.

169. On account of the considerable amount of time I have put into addressing these concerns voluntarily, it is reasonable to ask that I’m updated regularly with any details of improvements or new policies which are put into place as a consequence of highlighting the negligence and error.

170. Ideally a role would be created so that every local authority has an accountable person to ensure matters like these are never allowed to remain unresolved indefinitely. That person would be responsible for ensuring taxpayers affected are not left spending considerable amounts of their life battling to no end. If such a role does in fact exist within local government, then that person in respect of NELC should be held to account and appropriate action taken against him.

171. In order that the Government is seen to be serious about reforming mismanagement in councils (and HM Court Service), it would be appropriate for parliament to consider enacting new or amending existing legislation so that matters as serious as these are punishable with a custodial sentence. Where an individual faces the prospects of being given a criminal record and consequently having this go against them when seeking other employment, the introduction of custodial sentences would likely be an effective deterrent against improper conduct.

172. The threat of a criminal record could also be what is needed for a would-be offender to think twice about using their public office to carry out personal vendettas and that it is unacceptable and disproportionate to subject an aggrieved taxpayer to such gross injustice and inconvenience for the relatively small matter of losing face by admitting and remedying errors. It would also focus minds that to cause someone gross injustice is an unacceptable trade off for covering up mismanagement just to avoid, for example, an upheld complaint that might adversely affect performance targets etc.

173. The way in which NELC investigates its formal complaints is clearly in a manner which best interests itself. It goes without saying that for residents taking the trouble to raise concerns to be duped like this have been subjected to nothing less than unjust charade. It would therefore benefit residents of North East Lincolnshire if an independent body were to oversee the complaints process, ensuring the investigation is conducted impartially. The current arrangement serves no purpose other than for officers engaged in the process to cover up failings for their colleagues.

174. It is feasible there has been deliberate intent to cause gross inconvenience. If it is found that an officer has used their public role to indulge in their own personal perverse gratification, the police should be forwarded details to consider the prospects of a criminal prosecution.

Annex A

.......

[outlawlgo]

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

The following letter has been sent to Grimsby Magistrates' Court regarding North East Lincolnshire Council's court costs:

NELC Costs (letter) 14 January 2015

The spreadsheet referred to in the letter (Summons Cost Calculation 2014/15) is here; (see this link)


P.S. The Council's external auditor has commenced proceedings in the matter of applying to the court for a declaration that an item of account is contrary to law under section 17(1) of the Audit Commission Act 1998 with respect to Council Tax court summons costs and another matter.

Post #26 of this thread

[outlawlgo]

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

Another case won in the High Court (council tax liability order costs).

Ewing v Highbury Corner Magistrates Court & Anor [2015] EWHC 3788

.........

11. The substantial question raised in lengthy written submissions and oral argument can be resolved without recourse, as the court was invited, to R v Willesden Justices ex parte Utley [1947] 1 KB 397 and other authorities on criminal sentencing. Regulation 34(7) of the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 (SI 1992 No.613) provides that when granting a liability order the court shall make an order reflecting the aggregate of the outstanding council tax and a sum of an amount equal to the costs reasonably incurred by the applicant in obtaining the order.

12. Accordingly it is not necessary to form a view on the liability of the Claimant in the sum of £137.02. That is a matter which the Interested Party local authority must decide. The order made was the aggregate of the costs and the debt, the costs part of the order falls away, so must the balance which went to make up the aggregate. The liability order is also quashed.

[outlawlgo]

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

From: outlawlgo
To: Auditor (KPMG)
Sent: December 27, 2015
Subject: Audit Commission Act 1998 - Council tax summons costs Accounts

Dear Sir/Madam

Re: Declaration of unlawful account and report in the public interest

In your capacity as external auditor to North East Lincolnshire Council (the 'Council') I am requesting KPMG apply to the court for a declaration that an item of account is contrary to law under section 17(1) of the Audit Commission Act 1998 with respect to Council Tax court summons costs.

It would also seem appropriate that serious consideration is given whether to produce a report in the public interest under section 8 of the Audit Commission Act 1998.

Charge briefly outlined

A £60 sum is applied as standard to the taxpayer's account in all cases where the Council makes complaint to the Magistrates' court for alleged non-payment of council tax. The charge is added on serving a summons, whether or not the person summonsed is proceeded against in the Magistrates' court, or whether the Council incurs any expenditure in respect of resources expended engaging with the person.

Note: It is this activity (staff contact) for which a significant element of the £60 costs is attributed, see Annex F, attached Grounds of Appeal ("GoA").

Point of law

The Statutory Instrument which provides for claiming these costs is the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992. The level (and application) of costs are restricted to instituting the complaint (summons) by regulation 34(5) and where the case proceeds to court and a liability order is obtained, regulation 34(7) allows costs to include the additional expenditure attributed to that process.

The costs must be referable to each of these stages therefore a lesser sum is incurred by the Council for instituting the complaint and must not include any of the expenditure attributed to obtaining the court order, or other expenditure, like for example enforcing the order after it has been granted by the court.


The Council's policy to apply costs / Judicial review

As stated, the Council recharges a standard sum in all cases and therefore not in accordance with the incremental two stage approach outlined in the Regulations. Also, by applying the same sum in all cases, the situation arises where a taxpayer who simply settles his debt on receiving a demand (summons) subsidises the costs of another taxpayer who engages with staff, for example to renegotiate payment plans, and the subsequent expenditure attributed to monitoring the arrangement.

However, in a recent High Court case; R (Nicolson) v Tottenham Magistrates [2015] EWHC 1252 (Admin), the judge gave guidance in a bid to clarify the grey area surrounding the Council electing; i) to charge a standard sum in all cases; and ii) not to apply a lesser sum for instituting the complaint than the costs for proceeding to court and obtaining the liability order.

Paragraph 46 of the judgment (attached), with regard to a standard sum, states, so far as is relevant as follows:

46. In principle, therefore, provided that the right types of costs and expenses are taken into account, and provided that due consideration is given to the dangers of double-counting, or of artificial inflation of costs, it may be a legitimate approach for a local authority to calculate and aggregate the relevant costs it has incurred in the previous year, and divide that up by the previous (or anticipated) number of summonses over twelve months so as to provide an average figure which could be levied across the board in “standard” cases...

Paragraph 50 of the judgment, with regard to not applying a lesser sum for instituting the complaint etc., states as follows:

50. In principle there is no reason why a local authority should not decide to limit the costs it claims to the costs in connection with issuing the summons, although in practical terms that approach provides no incentive to the respondent to pay up after the summons is issued. What matters is that the costs that it does decide to claim are properly referable to the enforcement process.

Implications of R (Nicolson) v Tottenham Magistrates

The judge's opinion at para 46 is that it may be a legitimate approach to apply a standard sum in all cases. However, if wanting to take that approach (and do so lawfully) the standard sum would also have to be properly referable to the Regulations (regs 34 and 35). If there is any doubt as to what these regulations provide clarification has been provided in the Council Tax Practice Note 9: Recovery and Enforcement, produced by the Department of the Environment (1993) and more recently in the 2013 Government good practice guide, for the collection of Council Tax arrears, which both state that "the amount claimed by way of costs in any individual case is no more than that reasonably incurred by the authority".

In that case, given that the amount claimed by way of costs in any individual case must be no more than that reasonably incurred by the billing authority, if the Council wanted to take advantage of streamlining the administration process by applying a standard sum in all cases, in order for it to be done lawfully, it would need to forfeit each element of expenditure it incurs that is not common to every application (the majority of costs which are accounted for in its breakdown).

In other words, a standard sum could not exceed that incurred by the authority in a case where the least expenditure is attributed, which would in practice relate to a taxpayer settling his outstanding debt on receipt of a summons without contacting the council on any issue. Deriving a figure therefore from the ‘Gross Recoverable costs’ (see Annex F, GoA) which is split between an estimated number of summons, can not be lawful; even less so if the number of summons is reduced to factor in an estimate for those withdrawn, waived and those in respect of unrecoverable costs.

The least cost case is the only basis on which to determine a standard sum if the aim is to eliminate the administrative burden of calculating the costs in each case, whilst at the same time complying with the regulations which require that the costs be no more than that incurred by the authority in any individual case.

The Council sets its standard costs at a level to ensure that no cost of recovery is borne by the taxpayer in priority to complying with the Regulations that restrict the amount that can be recharged in costs to the court application (Annex C of GoA, particularly paras 4-10). It is therefore contended that an element of the standard £60 costs can not be compliant with the Regulations, based as they are on the premise that any expenditure considered attributable to recovery and enforcement activity (however tenuously linked) is recoverable by recharging it to the defendants through costs claimed in an application for a Liability Order

The breakdown of costs which the Council has undertaken to keep under review provides evidence that in the circumstances relating a taxpayer simply settling their debt on receiving a summons, the vast majority of expenditure it claims is not incurred for the issue of a summons so is contended that the claimed costs represent a sum outside that which the law provides.

If the Regulations were applied lawfully, the consequences would be that the majority of ‘Council Tax’ (£191,730), ‘Debt Recovery’ (£327,480) and the ‘Control & Monitoring’ costs (£109,380) would not be permissible in respect of re-charging expenditure for instituting the complaint (see paras 73-115, GoA).

Yours sincerely

[outlawlgo]

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

Judicial Appointments & Conduct Ombudsman
102 Petty France
London
SW1H 9AJ

E headofoffice@jaco.gsi.gov.uk

www.judicialombudsman.gov.uk

PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL

By e-mail: [14 December 2015]

December 2015

JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS AND CONDUCT OMBUDSMAN’S OFFICE

It has come to my notice that you have had neither a reply nor an acknowledgement to your e-mails of 8 and 19 August 2015 in connection with a matter that you had previously raised with the Advisory Committee for Yorkshire and South Humberside in September 2014.

I would like to apologise for this. This Office receives a large volume of correspondence and, although it should not happen, there is always a possibility that some might “slip through the net”. However, post should certainly not remain unanswered when people write alerting us to the fact that they have not received a response. I can only apologise for our shortcomings in this regard.

You are aware that the Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman’s remit enables him to consider concerns about the process by which complaints against Judicial Office Holders are dealt with under the arrangements for dealing with personal conduct matters. We describe this as a “second tier” investigation function. There are a number of organisations who might be responsible for conducting “first tier” investigations into Judicial Office Holders’ personal conduct. They include Advisory Committees, who are responsible for considering complaints about Magistrates in their area. Advisory Committees are required to consider whether there are issues in a Magistrate’s personal conduct that might warrant a disciplinary sanction and, if so, to refer the matter to the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO).

The Ombudsman can consider whether the process followed by first tier bodies was in accordance with the set down procedures for dealing with judicial conduct matters (ie the Judicial Conduct (Magistrates) Rules 2014 and associated guidance) or whether there was any other aspect of maladministration. The Ombudsman cannot say whether the first tier body reached the correct decision. Nor can he comment on matters that are considered under arrangements other than those for dealing with judicial conduct matters and he cannot consider any issues thatrare before the Courts. I attach a copy of an Annex [see below] to the Ombudsman’s 2006/07 Annual Report, which includes a discussion of maladministration. You will see that it might encompass matters such as delay and inattention.

The Ombudsman does not normally accept complaints for investigation until the relevant “first tier” investigation has been concluded. There us one exception to this. In exceptional circumstances he will consider concerns about delay in investigating a first tier complaint before the first tier investigation has finished. Accepting a complaint about delay whilst an investigation is ongoing would not preclude the Ombudsman from conducting a further investigation after the first tier investigating body has concluded its deliberations.

The position as I understand it from the papers you have sent is that you submitted a complaint on 2 September 2014 to the Central Secretariat Office at Doncaster Magistrates’ Court. You said that you had concerns arising from a Council Tax Liability Order hearing in November 2012 and provided a chronology of events which you suggested was “evidence that the Magistrates’ conduct has been such to pervert the course of justice”. You provided a copy of correspondence that you had sent to the Judicial Office in May 2015 and to the JCIO in June 2015, both of whom said that they would alert the Justices’ Clerk to your concerns.

It appears from the documents you have sent that, as of August 2015, the Advisory Committee had not responded to any of your correspondence about the matter. If the case is still unresolved you may wish to ask the Ombudsman to consider the process by which the Advisory Committee has handled the matter to this point. If so I would be grateful if you could confirm and provide permission for this Office to disclose your complaint and correspondence to the Advisory Committee and for the Advisory Committee to provide this Office with copies of its documents.

You may be aware that information on the Ombudsman’s role and remit is contained on his website (https://www.gov.uk/government/organi...duct-ombudsman). This includes a form that people can fill in order to submit a complaint (I attach an electronic copy). However, if you are only asking the Ombudsman to consider concerns that the Advisory Committee had not responded to your concerns then you might believe that you have already set out your concerns about the process and that all you need to do would be to provide permission to disclose the complaint and file, as discussed above.

We look forward to hearing from you if you want the Ombudsman to consider issues regarding delay by Yorkshire and South Humberside Advisory Committee up to this point. If you wish to pursue a further complaint after the Advisory Committee’s deliberations are complete you would need to set out exactly why you believe that the Advisory Committee failed to follow a correct process and provide us with written permission to disclose, as discussed above (the best way of doing this might be to complete a complaint form). It would also be helpful if you could provide a copy of the Advisory Committee’s final response to your complaint. Please also be aware that the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 generally requires that people submit complaint to the Ombudsman within twenty eight days of being notified of the decision reached by the first tier body (there is scope to consider complaints received outside that timeframe if the Ombudsman considers it reasonable in all the circumstances).

I hope that this information is helpful. I apologise again for the very poor handling of your previous correspondence.


Acting Head of Office

ANNEX A

“Examples of maladministration by Sir William Reid” as quoted by the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

In the 1993 Annual Report of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, under the heading "What is maladministration?", Sir William Reid, the then Ombudsman, wrote:

"To define maladministration is to limit it. Such a limitation could work to the disadvantage of individual complainants with justified grievances which did not fit within a given definition. However I suggest an expanded list of examples going beyond those recounted in what has become known as the Crossman catalogue. When the Parliamentary Commissioner Bill was being taken through Parliament, the examples with Mr Crossman as Leader of the House of Commons then gave were bias, neglect, inattention, delay, incompetence, ineptitude*, perversity, turpitude, arbitrariness and so on. In the language of the 1990s I would add:

• rudeness (though that is a matter of degree);

• unwillingness to treat the complainant as a person with rights;

• refusal to answer reasonable questions;

• neglecting to inform a complainant on request of his or her rights or entitlement;

• knowingly giving advice which is misleading or inadequate;

• ignoring valid advice or overruling considerations which would produce an uncomfortable result for the overruler;

• offering no redress or manifestly disproportionate redress;

• showing bias whether because of colour, sex , or any other grounds;

• omission to notify those who thereby lose a right of appeal;

• refusal to inform adequately of the right of appeal;

• faulty procedures;

• failure by management to monitor compliance with adequate procedures;

• cavalier disregard of guidance which is intended to be followed in the interest of equitable treatment of those who use a service;

• partiality; and

• failure to mitigate the effects of rigid adherence to the letter of the law where that produces manifestly inequitable treatment."

*Crossman's list reads "inaptitude", not "ineptitude"

[outlawlgo]

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

Page 11 of the July 2015 presentation slides says it all:

Council Tax

When calculating the costs – no account should be taken of anything as follows:

–Post LO
–General administration of Council Tax
–no way now to include the full costs of the Recovery section

Page 13 of the same....

Council Tax
.....
No requirement for individual costs on a case by case basis

Could charge more for difficult cases......

The amount claimed by way of costs in any individual case must be no more than that reasonably incurred by the billing authority (para 51). Therefore, if the billing authority wanted to take advantage of streamlining the administration process by applying a standard sum in all cases (paras 47–51), in order for it to be done lawfully, it would need to forfeit each element of expenditure it incurs that is not common to every application (the majority of costs which council's account for).

In other words, a standard sum could not exceed that incurred by the authority in a case where the least expenditure is attributed – typical of a taxpayer settling his outstanding debt on receipt of a summons without contacting the council on any issue. Deriving a figure therefore from the ‘recoverable costs’ which is split between an estimated number of summons, can not be lawful; even less so if the number of summons is reduced to factor in an estimate for those withdrawn, waived and those in respect of unrecoverable costs. This is simply the only way to lessen the administrative burden of calculating the costs in each case, whilst at the same time complying with the regulations which require that the costs be no more than that incurred by the authority in any individual case.

[Adamna]

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

Evidently they realise that they're in trouble, and it's not only about the future. The past is still with us. The "permissible/non-permissible costs" is a bit disingenuous.
"Some confusion in the case about documents that have to be issued by law but the gist is that only statutory reminder/final can be included and only for those who subsequently go to Summons stage"
I don't think anyone can be charged for those, or that there is any confusion, and will argue that they can't. There's no warning on the reminder notice that it could cost you £50. The idea that they could charge you £50 for an automated piece of paper is, of course, ridiculous. But that's the size of it.

[Amethyst]

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

Uploaded webinar slides.

[outlawlgo]

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

I would love to be a fly on the wall at one of these: http://www.irrv.net/conferences/meeting.asp?Mid=1586



.

Wonder if the course content ran along these lines?

Court Costs and Update (IRRV 30 September 2015)

IRRV FORUM WEBINAR
–
30TH SEPTEMBER 2015



COURT COSTS: AN UPDATE


GARY L WATSON IRRV (HONS)

DEPUTY CHIEF EXECUTIVE IRRV

EDIT:

IRRVs view of some permissible/non-permissible costs

[outlawlgo]

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

The skeleton argument has been updated to reflect the judgment in the Haringey case (the link below). The document is unfinished, hence reference numbers to the Grounds of Appeal (GoA) edited out.

Draft Skeleton argument

[outlawlgo]

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

The attempts of raising concerns about the dysfunctional justice system through proper channels have been futile. Both the Advisory Committee for Humber & South Yorkshire and then the Judicial Appointment and Conduct Ombudsman have stonewalled the complaints, implications for which in my mind should be criminal. However, where the proper channels have failed, another avenue has presented itself that should prove difficult for the authorities to ignore.

As of the 27 August 2015 I have been under arrest (currently on bail) for trumped-up charges, the minutiae of which I won't go into here. Humberside police incidentally falsely imprisoned me for several hours approximately from 6pm to 2am the following morning. I learned on 4 August that the contrived evidence, which could implicate the arresting officer with perjury, was dismissed by the Crown Prosecution Service, so the charge changed from one trumped-up charge to another so the arresting officer, by hook or by crook, gets his conviction.

Just to put this in context, as well as attempting to expose the council tax liability order application process, namely the cosy and corrupt relationship that exists between local authorities and HMCTS, I have submitted evidence to Humberside police's economic crime unit relating to bailiff fee fraud, potentially amount to millions of pounds over a five year period. Again, I won't go into the fine detail here but the force has made it categorically clear that the evidence I have submitted does not warrant police resources being used and have pulled all sorts of stunts to avoid investigating, including wrongly classifying complaints in order to deny the complainant's appeal rights.

This would normally be the kind of matter that a potential recipient of a criminal record would rather keep under his hat, but when you think about it, it's a perfect opportunity to expose the justice system for what it is...'a complete and utter sham'. The authorities are keen to exploit the justice system to make money from contrived evidence but when it comes to serious crimes where the public is being scammed £millions by the state it turns a blind eye.

A date is set for an attendance at the Grimsby Magistrates court on 30 September 2015, the consequences of which I have been informed if I fail to do so may be a fine, imprisonment or both. I expressed my view that I have no confidence in the Grimsby Magistrates' court, it is a kangaroo court and have been lied to by the Justices Clerk in another matter (High Court appeal) and find it inappropriate that this court is given the opportunity to hear the case and pass judgment.

I feel however that I will be forced to appear (handcuffed if necessary) but will make it known to the bench that I consider a court which is complicit in the criminal actions of local authorities unlawfully claiming court costs is not fit to preside over my case.

[outlawlgo]

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

Update.

No acknowledgement from the Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman to the email sent on 8 August 2015. A reminder sent today. I can see this being just another state sponsored organisation attempting to fake accountability.