Council Tax Liability Order Applications Court Costs – Test Case

[outlawlgo]

This is what the council commonly refer to as a "first reminder", or what might be considered the first stage in the recovery process leading to a Summons, then a Liability Order granted by the Magistrates' Court if no action is taken as per the instructions.

I will, as a test case, be querying this, and subsequent correspondence with the council to try and establish if their procedure, including the imposed costs, are entirely lawful.

The first two items of highlighted text show that this letter has not been dealt with by a member of staff.

It states the taxpayer's sex (Mr), initial and surname, then continues to address the account holder as "Dear Sir or Madam". It then states – third item highlighted:

"It appears from my records....."

This strikes me as an outrageous lie. There has been no member of staff, diligently going through thousands of accounts to find that a council tax instalment has been overlooked. This has been worded in such a way to give an impression that more work is going on, than actually is.

It is understandable that Councils would want to emphasise the effort required in producing these reminders, summonses etc., when "without any further notice being given to you" a summons will be issued, incurring £70 costs. However, the council would have a mammoth task on its hands, if it were ever required to prove that £180,000 or so, was reasonably incurred in respect of one bogus Magistrates' court hearing. This would be a corresponding amount of over two and a half thousand householders incurring £70 summons costs. The point being that the law only allows the authority to charge its residents costs it has reasonably incurred, not make a profit.

The considerations have to be:

• Can it be possible for the council to reasonably incur costs of £70? These will be batched with thousands of others in an automated process?
• Is it lawful for a council to impose on a resident, a predetermined amount of costs, before a Magistrate has determined what level of costs should be awarded?
• The Council Tax regulations provide for costs to be added in stages. For example, penalties can be less if an account holder settles what's outstanding in-between when the summons is issued and the court hearing (liability order). This council has front loaded all the costs to the summons stage.

These are some of the issues I'm hoping the authority will be able to verify.

[outlawlgo]

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

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

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

"The Court’s decision

74. The Appellant had written to the court prior to the hearing referring to the DoE publication from 1993 requesting, in accordance with the document, that the court ‘question the reasonableness of [the Council’s] claims and require that the council provide evidence to support the amount claimed by way of costs is no more than it reasonably incurs’.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Post Magistrates’ court hearing

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

82. .......

[Adamna]

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

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

[outlawlgo]

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

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

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

Application to state a case

2.1

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

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

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

[outlawlgo]

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

Email received today with attached cover letter dated 13 January 2017.

HM Courts &
Tribunals Service

13 January 2017

Dear outlawlgo

Please find attached electronic copy of the signed final case, as requested.

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

The MCR require service by the Court of the draft case upon both the applicant for a case to be stated and the respondent, but the final case is served only upon the applicant by the Court under the MCR. The Practice Direction states that it is for the appellant to lodge the final case in the Administrative Court within 10 days of receipt thereof, and to serve a copy of the final case upon the respondent within 4 days thereafter. Accordingly the final case has not been served on North East Lincolnshire Council by the Court as it is the duty of the appellant to do so.

I shall be grateful if you will acknowledge receipt of this correspondence and the final case.

Yours sincerely

Justices' Clerk - Humber and South Yorkshire

[outlawlgo]

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

Doesn't this rather confirm that the final case stated was never despatched? Neither you nor the council received it, both are mandatory recipients.

It's not just the final case that failed to reach the council. According to the 19 December 2013 cover letter from the Magistrates' court, the draft case also failed to reach the council.

19 December 2013

Re: Application to State a Case

I acknowledge receipt of your representations upon the draft case.

North East Lincolnshire Council sought an extension to the time in which they may submit representations on the draft case as the Council stated that they had not received the draft case. This request was granted.

Enclosed herewith is the final case.

If you wish to pursue your appeal, the case must be lodged with the Administrative Court Office at the Royal Courts of Justice within 10 days of receiving it from this office, and within four days of lodging the case, the you must serve on the Respondent a notice of entry of the appeal together with a copy of the case.

I shall be grateful if you would kindly acknowledge receipt of this correspondence and enclosure.

There is something adrift here because the council served representations electronically on both myself and the court on 9 September 2013. So even allowing for an extension, the final case should have been expected around 21 days after that as the relevant procedure rules stipulate. The final case is dated 18 December 2013 which is around 14 weeks after 9 September.

[Adamna]

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

It has been confirmed by North East Lincolnshire Council that it holds no record of the final case and suggest that a signed copy is also served on the Council in accordance with Part 35 of the Criminal Procedure Rules 2015 (35.3 sub-paragraph 9).

Doesn't this rather confirm that the final case stated was never despatched? Neither you nor the council received it, both are mandatory recipients.

[outlawlgo]

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

From: JC-H&SY@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
To: 'outlawlgo'
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2017 4:41 PM
Subject: Email request of 5 January 2017

Dear outlawlgo

I confirm that your email request of 5 January 2017 has been received at this office and is receiving attention.

You will receive the document requested and a reply to your message by 13 January 2017.

Yours sincerely

Celine Allerton
Legal Admin Team Leader - Humber & South Yorkshire Cluster
Doncaster Justice Centre South
College Road
Doncaster DN1 3HS
Tel: 01302 308300

[outlawlgo]

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

I fully anticipate escalating my complaint to the next stage but my priority is lodging the application with the Administrative Office at the Royal Courts of Justice and therefore ask that a signed copy of the final case is sent to me to enable this (the copy I have is unsigned and marked "office copy").

The signed copy of the 'case' has not yet been received. An employee of HMCTS with whom I spoke this morning stated that this had been arranged, but would in any event see to it that a scanned document (signed) will be sent as an email attachment.

[outlawlgo]

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

From: outlawlgo
To: HMCTS
Cc: Head of Legal NELC; Justices' Clerk
Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2017
Subject: Re: Complaint submitted 25 June 2016


Dear HMCTS

Thank you for your 3 January 2017 response and attachments.

I can confirm that none of the letters, stated to have been sent, have been delivered to me. The first time I have seen copies of them was 3 January 2017.

I had been informed on 23 February 2016 that the final case had been sent to me but unaware that the date it was sent was 19 December 2013 until seeing a copy of the cover letter on 3 January 2017.

The number of undelivered items sent by post which I'm now aware of in this matter totals 11, therefore, I would prefer future correspondence to be sent by email as you suggest.

I fully anticipate escalating my complaint to the next stage but my priority is lodging the application with the Administrative Office at the Royal Courts of Justice and therefore ask that a signed copy of the final case is sent to me to enable this (the copy I have is unsigned and marked "office copy").

It has been confirmed by North East Lincolnshire Council that it holds no record of the final case and suggest that a signed copy is also served on the Council in accordance with Part 35 of the Criminal Procedure Rules 2015 (35.3 sub-paragraph 9).

Yours sincerely

[outlawlgo]

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

From: "HMCTS"
To: "outlawlgo"
Sent: 03 January 2017 08:43
Attach:
Letter 13.12.16.pdf;
Letter 22.7.16.pdf;
Letter 28.11.16.pdf;
Final Case.pdf;
Letter 1.5.14.pdf;
Letter 15.4.16.pdf;
Letter 19.12.13.pdf;
Letter 20.2.14.pdf
Subject: Complaint submitted 25 June 2016

Dear outlawlgo,

Please find enclosed herewith responses sent to yourself by post in respect of your complaint sent to the Customer Service Unit on 25 June 2016, the first response was posted on 22 July 2016.

As you will see further letters were sent to you on 28 November 2016 and 13 December 2016 by post to the address below. At no time has any correspondence been returned to the sender by Royal Mail.

outlawlgo
Grimsby
North East Lincolnshire
DN32 XYZ

I also enclose herewith a copy of the letters sent (again by post) to the above address on 19 December 2013, 20 February 2014, 1 May 2014 and 15 April 2016 and the "case stated" document.

Can I ask would your preference for any future communications be sent solely by way of email, to ensure delivery?

[REDACTED]

If you remain dissatisfied with Ms Watts' reply of 22 July 2016, then you may of course request a review of the reply by the Cluster Manager for Humber & South Yorkshire. Any review must follow the complaint escalation procedure as you did with the response to your complaint dated 11 August 2016.

Yours sincerely

HMCTS

[outlawlgo]

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

From: outlawlgo
To: .....mp@parliament.uk
Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2016
Subject: HM Courts & Tribunal Service Customer Investigations Team

Dear Melanie Onn

Re: HM Courts & Tribunal Service Customer Investigations Team

I have discussed my concerns with the Parliamentary Ombudsman (7 December) about a failure to get a response to a complaint formally submitted to HM Courts & Tribunal Service. The caseworker advised I contact you to request that the Ombudsman intervene if the court continues to be uncooperative.

As set out in my December 8 correspondence below I have given the Customer Investigations Team further opportunity to respond which the service has not taken.

The difficulty probably arises in the fact that the Investigations Team referred the complaint to the person whom my complaint concerns.

I would appreciated if you would ask the Ombudsman to intervene. The caseworker who I have communicated with on this matter is Mr Ian Conroy who can be contacted on telephone number:.......

Yours sincerely

[outlawlgo]

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

From: 'outlawlgo'
To: HMCTS Customer Service (Correspondence)
Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2016
Subject: Re: 'outlawlgo': Complaint - Grimsby Magistrate's court

Dear Anisul Haque

You will be aware from previous emails that my complaint has been with the Justices' Clerk, Alison Watts, for approaching 6 months and have not yet received any indication that an investigation is underway.

I have discussed the matter with a caseworker at the Parliamentary Ombudsman yesterday and have been advised to contact my MP to request that the Ombudsman intervene. However, before I do so I need to allow HMCTS another opportunity to provide a response within a reasonable time frame and so formally asking that a date is given by which I can expect the outcome.

Yours sincerely

[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

From: 'outlawlgo'
To: HMCTS Customer Service (Correspondence)
Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2016
Subject: Fw: outlawlgo: Complaint - Grimsby Magistrate's court

Dear Sir/Madam

Re: Grimsby Magistrates' court Complaint - 25 June 2016

I would like acknowledgement of the email I sent on 17 November 2016 and confirmation that my complaint is being looked into.

Yours sincerely

From: HMCTS Customer Service (Correspondence)
To: 'outlawlgo'
Sent: Friday, November 25, 2016
Subject: RE: outlawlgo: Complaint - Grimsby Magistrate's court

Dear outlawlgo

Thank you for your email of 24 November. I am sorry that you did not get an acknowledgment of your email of 17 November. I can confirm that we received it and have asked the court to respond to your complaint.

Yours sincerely

Anisul Haque

Customer Investigations Officer | Customer Investigations Team

[Adamna]

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

The councils have a fairly determined set of corrupt foot soldiers that form a bailey to prevent entry to the 'inner court'. Breaking through will meet supreme disinterest in your cause, but it would at least tip the scales of manageability and realisation that those thousands of names are real people.