Council Tax Liability Order Applications Court Costs – Test Case

[three rivers of corruption]

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

Keep up the good work outlawlgo.
As you point out the central issue is a failing of the magistrates courts in their duties.
You could argue that the magistrates courts capacity to scrutinise costs is probably limited , particularly with as complicated a case as council tax summonses. With a nationwide issue like council tax enforcement , the widespread abuse of the costs by local authorities and the public interest at stake, you would think that somebody in authority would step in and dictate a fair figure , because the system at present is clearly not acting in the best interest of the people or the reputation of the court system.
It is quite bizarre that the only way to get the costs scrutinised is to go through the rigmarole you are , whereas , if the magistrates courts were acting legitimately, it would be done as a matter of routine.

[outlawlgo]

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

It doesn't take much to arrive at the conclusion that these conveyor belt style prosecutions function as a financial prop to the justice service which the government it seems aims to supply self financing to UK citizens.

If the only way to dispute the bench's decision and get a second opinion is for a defendant to risk his home in what is the casino of civil litigation, the government must feel pretty confident that the £millions in court fees it receives each year from local authorities paying application fees is safe.

In the case of the "magistrates courts capacity to scrutinise costs", there is possibly a case to argue, but when magistrates' courts don't question how they've been determined and the effects of benefit reforms highlights such disproportionate costs, there are serious issues which need addressing.

[Smiffy]

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

Have been following this thread and just joined as a result

Inspiring stuff!

Not sure if its been seen but here's a link which may be of interest - £1.22 for a final reminder and £80 for the next 2 documents

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/c...on-a-year.html

[outlawlgo]

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

Thanks for the link.

I remember another article (related) at around the same time in the Telegraph. I had a search and think this is the one:

How bailiffs reap the fraudulent rewards of their 'phantom visits'

[outlawlgo]

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

The Magistrates' Court has overrun the deadline "so far" by two months (as laid out in the Criminal Procedure Rules) for delivering the finalised case stated.

The Administrative Court dealing with the claim for judicial review to mandate the Justices to state the case, would like to know whether the judicial review claim will now be withdrawn, the reason being there no longer appears a need for further action on the part of the High Court.

From the content of the Administrative Court's letter, it appears "the point" has been completely missed.

The claim for judicial review was made because the Justices would only state the case on condition that recognizance was entered into, in the sum of £500 to prosecute the appeal without delay and to submit to the judgment of the High Court. The £500 sum would be subject to forfeiture if after delivery of the case stated the appeal was not proceeded with. Conditioning such a "casino style" arrangement was effectively denying my access to the courts.

The judicial review claim appeared to do only half the trick – see the Clerk's response in the Acknowledgement to the claim for mandatory order:

......Rather than formally responding to the claim for permission to apply for a judicial review, even though the Justices do not agree with the claim that has been made by the claimant, in the interests of saving the Administrative Court time and public money on a matter that is likely to reach the Administrative Court via the route of an appeal by way of case stated, the defendant court gives an undertaking that the draft case will be served upon the defendant within fourteen days of the date of this acknowledgement of service.

Presumably then, the reason why no case has been delivered by the Magistrates' court is because the Clerk to the Justices ONLY agreed to serve the DRAFT case within fourteen days but did not agree to anything in respect of complying with the Criminal Procedure Rules that lay out the rest of the procedure in an appeal to the high court by way of a case stated.

The options now are presumably to enter into recognizance with the Magistrates' Court with a view to negotiating terms that are mutually acceptable, or to write back to the Administrative Court stating that nothing, except the Justices' Clerk serving a DRAFT case, has been achieved by means of the claim for a mandatory order.

The 12 November 2013 letter from the Administrative Court:

HM Courts & Tribunals Service

Administrative Court Office at Leeds
Leeds Combined Court
1 Oxford Row
Leeds
West Yorkshire
LS1 3BG

12/11/2013

Our ref: CO/7281/2013
Your ref: <none>

Dear Sir/Madam

Re: The Queen on the application of [.................................................. ..........] v GRIMSBY MAGISTRATES COURT

Further to your letter dated 06/09/2013 it appears that you have now received a draft case stated and have made your response upon that draft. In the light of the response filed by the magistrates' court, I also assume (rightly or not) that you have now entered into the required recognizance in accordance with the rules.

As your judicial review claim was against what was claimed to be the refusal to state a case without entering into a recognizance, it appears that this outcome has now been achieved.

I would be obliged if you would contact the court by return to advise whether you are now withdrawing this judicial review claim as there no longer appears to be a need for further action on the part of the High Court, the process of stating a case now being underway (if not completed).

Please note: it remains a requirement that an appellant lodges with the High Court any final "case stated" within 10 days of receipt (which can be extended on application if necessary). There is a fee of £235 (or an application for fee remission). This is a separate matter from the judicial review claim.


Yours faithfully


Administrative Court lawyer
for Court Manager

[outlawlgo]

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

Administrative Court Office at Leeds
Leeds Combined Court
1 Oxford Row
Leeds

Your ref: CO/7281/2013

20 November 2013


Dear Sir/Madam

Re: The Queen on the application of [.................................................. .......] v GRIMSBY MAGISTRATES COURT

I'm asked to advise the court whether I will be withdrawing this judicial review claim as it deems there to be no longer a need for further action on the part of the High Court.

Representations have been made upon the draft case though I've neither entered into a recognizance nor since been asked to. The purpose of the judicial review claim was, I believed, to mandate the Justices to state the case without being subject to terms of a recognizance.

I had viewed that agreeing such terms would pose risks, potentially greater than subjecting myself to forfeiture of the proposed sum – if, for example, to avoid a penalty the appeal was prosecuted knowing that the stated case omitted the points in law I was questioning. In terms of successfully appealing the decision I would be disadvantaged from the outset and disproportionately exposed to the financial risks of incurring costs. It could be argued that in these circumstances, requiring recognizance would either be denying my access to justice or unduly burdening me financially, as presently I'm in receipt of no income.

Although the claim prompted service of the draft case, it still remains that delivery of the final signed case has, in accordance with CrimPR Part 64, rule 64.3(7), overrun by approximately two months. Presumably then, the agreement detailed in the acknowledgement of service was only to serve the draft case.

I am therefore in the same position now as I was before the claim for a mandatory order as it seems the Justices will unlikely deliver the signed case unless recognizance is entered into.

However, where my queries with the Magistrates' court went unanswered, the judicial review process succeeded in drawing from the Clerk that if I had appeared before the court to enter into a recognizance, its appropriateness and/or the amount could have been considered. This is exactly the information I was seeking and would never have obtained had I not proceeded with this claim for judicial review.

Knowing as I do now, that a possibility exists to negotiate terms which are mutually acceptable, it seems arranging to appear before the court to enter into a recognizance is now appropriate.

In light of the Justices expressing regard for the Administrative Court's time and public money, it would also seem appropriate, if, whilst appearing before the Magistrates' Court to agree terms of a recognizance, I also seek agreement to terms of an order that the court consider the matter on the papers and that there be no order as to costs, as the case involves a matter of general public importance.

After considering the options that appear available to me now, please take this as formal notice that I am withdrawing this judicial review claim.


Yours sincerely

[outlawlgo]

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

HM Courts & Tribunals Service

Administrative Court Office at Leeds
Leeds Combined Court
1 Oxford Row
Leeds
West Yorkshire
LS1 3BG

25 November 2013

Our ref: CO/7281/2013
Your ref:

Dear Sir/Madam

Re The Queen on the application of [.................................................. .......] versus GRIMSBY MAGISTRATES COURT

I am writing to inform you that your letter in the above case was received by this office on 22/11/2013.

Unless you hear from us within four weeks from the date of this letter, you can assume that your letter to withdraw has been accepted and the Court file has been closed.

Please note that all copy documents in the above matter will be destroyed immediately following the closure of the case, unless you have already notified the court that you would like them returned.

If you require any further information, please contact the Administrative Court Office General Office on 0113 306 2578.


Yours faithfully


For Court Manager

Back almost to square one.

Although the judicial review claim for mandatory order was not entirely successful in mandating the Magistrates' Court to state the case (other than the draft), it would never have been known there was a possibility to negotiate the terms of a recognizance at the hearing. It took this process to prompt a response from the Justices at Grimsby Magistrates' Court.

The next move then will be to arrange to appear before the Magistrates' Court to agree terms of a recognizance.

[three rivers of corruption]

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

"please take this as formal notice that I am withdrawing this judicial review claim."
And thus the local government, magistrates court and high court funded by the taxpayer succeed in smuthering the valiant attempt of the lone taxpayer for legal address to his legitimate complaint.
Three cheers for democracy .

[outlawlgo]

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

Only the judicial review claim is being withdrawn. That process succeeded in a small way in as much as it prompted a response from the Magistrates' court and for it to serve a draft case.

The case stated (as opposed the judicial review which was to mandate the court to state the case) will be pursued as originally intended. This will require arranging with the Justices' Clerk to agree terms of a recognizance which will involve a separate court hearing with the justices.

The high court has stated that "unless you hear from us within four weeks from the date of this letter [25 November 2013], you can assume that your letter to withdraw has been accepted and the Court file has been closed". After this point and assuming I don't hear from them (i.e., the judicial review claim is withdrawn), I'll then write to the Clerk to arrange to agree terms of a recognizance.

It seems that the Justices don't want the appeal to get into the high court and are using the recognizance as a financial deterrent as well as being obstructive in all other ways. For example it ignored several queries made in regards the terms of the recognizance and ignored the pre-action letter of my intention to apply for permission for judicial review:

".....Please acknowledge receipt of this letter and provide either a response addressing the issues I’ve raised or certificate stating that my application has been refused explaining the reason. If a response is not forthcoming within 14 days I will take it that the justices are both refusing to state the case and to give a certificate and will apply for permission to bring judicial review proceedings for a mandatory order requiring the Court to state a case...

It wasn't until the court filed its Acknowledgement of service to the claim for mandatory order that it disclosed that the terms of the recognizance may be discussed at the hearing. If, like the court stated, saving the Administrative Court time and public money was its concern, why had it chosen to ignore communications which would have saved the Court time and money for the unnecessary judicial review claim?

It will be interesting, now the judicial review claim is being withdrawn, whether the Justices will waive the £500 sum. The sum is only payable if the case is not prosecuted without delay once the case is stated. The obvious risk though, is the case not being stated accurately (as in the draft), exposing me either to forfeiture of the £500 if deciding not to file the case in the high court, or to unnecessarily risk having costs awarded against me for unwisely prosecuting a case which had been stated inaccurately.

[outlawlgo]

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

The council has uploaded a calculation (estimate) to its website of its total expenditure and arrived at a figure for its Gross Recoverable costs of £695,337. This, when split between the 9,396 summons requested in 2012/13 averaged at a cost of £74 per summons.

Summons Cost Calculation 2012 /13

The calculation (estimate) indicates that the £36,597 attributable to further work in obtaining a liability order does not appear in the Gross Recoverable costs, and further, is generously not charged to any defendant for which the cost is relevant.

The calculation has obviously been done in an attempt to pull the wool over the eyes of anyone wishing to scrutinise it. This seems to have worked even with professionals, as the calculation was provisional up until comments were received from the District Audit.

It would be interesting what an accountant (not on NELC's payroll) would make of a calculation to justify expenditure, which is based on a system whereby it accounts for "some arbitrary elements" which are not incurred rather than what is.

What should have struck the auditor as suspicious is how gross budget figures are given for three categories: "Council Tax"; "Debt Recovery" and "Control & Monitoring", from which random sums are subtracted from the gross expenditure. Nothing much is given away with respect to what elements did account for attributable work. Where it did for example, this related to time spent by staff dealing with calls arising from issuing summonses. So, in circumstances where individuals settle outstanding liability on receipt of a summons, i.e., where no contact is made or necessary with council staff, then all those costs must be discounted.

Allowing for that element alone would mean that from £74 this would reduce to £46 for those settling liability on receipt of a summons.

[outlawlgo]

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

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


10 January 2014


Dear Mrs .....


Re: North East Lincolnshire Council V ........

Grimsby and Cleethorpes Magistrates' Court - 2 November 2012
Application to State a Case

I refer to the draft case received 30 July 2013 and the 21 day time limit from receipt of the draft case to submit any written representations upon its content.

May I bring it to your attention that on 19 August 2013, representations were served together with letter advising the Court it had (from the latest day on which representations may be made) 21 days to state and sign the case in accordance with rule 78 of the Magistrates' Courts Rules 1981.

Accordingly, the final signed case was expected on or before 10 September 2013 (overrun by 4 months). I would therefore like to know why the justices have decided against complying with the relevant rules.



Yours sincerely

[outlawlgo]

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

There are a couple of articles in the Plymouth Herald (11 Feb, 2014 and November 15, 2013), which together with a Freedom of Information request, highlights how profitable the "Welfare Reforms" have been for local authorities and the Court's Service.

The sources mentioned have also added weight to any argument that officials serving in public office habitually 'lie to' and deceive the people who are paying their salaries.

It was quoted in the Plymouth Herald article, November 15, 2013 (see below) which is an admission in anyone's language that Plymouth City Council was profiting, therefore breaking the law, with the income generated from magistrates' court costs:

"The panel recommended cutting the charge of a liability order from £83 to £60, which is close to the break-even point for the council

Admitting to the press that they profit (and get away with it) highlights the lack of control, and provides evidence that Magistrates' courts accept, without evidence, that the expenses claimed have been incurred.

However, in one of the responses to the FoI request, it stated that "Plymouth City Council are not liable or responsible for what is published in the local press" and could "verify that the overall cost spent on recovery action exceeds the income that we receive from liability order charges".

It had previously submitted the calculation below to support its claim that the overall expenditure for recovery action exceeded the income received from liability order charges:

The costs of £83.00 are calculated as follows:

• Total revenue cost of Council Tax administration £2.65m

• Percentage of workload and time spent on recovery process 30.2%

• Notional budget spent on recovery £0.800m

• Number of Liability Orders for which the Council aims to recover costs: 8,065

• Charge for each Liability Order of £83

• Total income forecast for 2013/14 = £0.669m

Apart from it being obvious that the figure was made up, i.e., 30.2% of the overall Council Tax budget being attributable to recovery, the data and the way it was calculated relating to summons and liability order costs was completely botched.

If it had used figures for 2012/13 obtained from CIPFA, then even with the dubious £0.8m claimed as recovery expenditure, the calculation would be have shown a £46k surplus as a profit for the council.

However, the whole situation changes drastically if you substitute actual data obtained from the Plymouth Herald (11 Feb, 2014), which incidentally relates only from April to December 2013 (an incomplete year for 2013/14):

• Notional budget spent on recovery £0.800m

• Number of Summonses for 2013/14 (part year): 18,262

• Number of Liability Orders for 2012/13 (part year): 10,993

• Summons income for 2013/14 = £1,095,720

• Liability Order income for 2013/14 = £252,839

• Total (part year) income for 2013/14 = £1,348,559m

As you can see from the calculation (still using the unrealistically over estimated £0.8m claimed as recovery expenditure), there would be £548,559 surplus which will be substantially more when costs are added in respect of the remaining three months recovery income.

[outlawlgo]

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

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


13 February 2014


Dear Mrs .....


Re: North East Lincolnshire Council V ........

Grimsby and Cleethorpes Magistrates' Court - 2 November 2012
Application to State a Case

Further to there being no response to my letter of 10.1.14, I am left not knowing why the justices did not state the case in accordance with rule 78 of the Magistrates' Courts Rules 1981.

It must be assumed that the court only gave an undertaking to serve the draft case, re acknowledgement of service (Judicial Review 8.7.13) and not intended delivering the case stated until recognizance had been agreed.

As a consequence of the judicial review claim, I understand that despite a sum (£500) being stated in your letter (24.1.13), the appropriateness and/or the amount may be considered on agreeing recognizance. It would appear that if this appeal is to be progressed it will be conditional on entering into recognizance. I therefore ask that arrangements are made for this to take place and await your response.




Yours sincerely

[Basilsalty]

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

Hello

I have been following this thread since receiving a summons from Brighton and Hove council for non payment of council tax on the basement flat below our maisonette which was empty for the first time in 4 years and is between tenants.
My issue is with the summons which was billed at £100, however if I paid in full promptly (which I did) this was reduced to £50.
I will be pursuing the legality of this practice with the council in due course as it is like a parking fine and clearly does not reflect the actual cost of issuing a summons.
I would appreciate any thoughts on this from any keen legal minds out there.
I just want to offer my support to this thread and to say keep up the good work as I think it is criminal that councils are getting away with raising revenue by stealth in this way.

Thanks

[outlawlgo]

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

Hi Basilfalty

There's a Freedom of Information request on the "whatdotheyknow" website made to Brighton and Hove:

"Council Tax recovery – payment incentives for take-up of direct debit"

Some of the responses might be relevant to your situation, but from what you say you are already aware of some of their dubious policies surrounding how they treat court costs as penalties.

This one particularly deals with their policy: (3 January 2013)

....Post April 2011 if, upon receipt of a summons, a customer contacts the Council before the court date (the date the liability order is applied for) and is either able to pay the outstanding council tax off in full or set up a direct debit to pay the outstanding council tax, then officers, have the discretion to offer to withdraw the summons and prevent the matter proceeding to Court.

Additionally the withdrawal of the summons is dependant upon the customer making an immediate payment towards a proportion of the costs. The amount expected is dependent upon their outstanding balance. If the outstanding council tax (before the summons costs have been added/incurred) is £149.99 or less, then we require a contribution towards the costs of £25.00 to be paid; if the outstanding council tax is £150.00 or greater, then a £50.00 contribution towards costs is required.

Officers do have the discretion to waive the costs completely. Normally this would only apply where the issue of the summons was erroneous in the first place or there were exceptional circumstances.....