CT and JSA

[andrewh]

Howdy,

Thank you for running this board, even simple legal advice is hard to come by these days.

I have had three experiences with my local council so far.

2005 - Went to court over a small amount because I had not paid on time. I argued my case in front of the court and was charged £15 fees (reduced by the court from £25 the council wanted).

2010 - I did not go to court over a relatively small amount but entered into payment by instalments and was charged £60 simply for the issue of the summons. A steep increase (more than double £25) in only five years!


2013 (Court date 29/7) - The council wanted £154.02 from me despite my being on JSA. This was due to CT benefit being cut. My argument was that it was unlawful to reduce the money the law says I need to live on. The council was not interested and the lay judges just stared blankly, then asked the council solicitor what to do. Having said everybody else has to pay they agreed and added £80 worth of fees.

The court date was a complete farce. The working day before the date I spoke to the duty solicitor who refused counsel. He recommended I speak to the duty solicitor on the day. On the day there was no duty solicitor which I told the court before stating my case. The clerk confirmed that there was no duty solicitor but let the hearing commence despite my not having access to legal advice beforehand.

Since this has happened, the council have simply deducted payments at source from my JSA. DWP are not interested despite having a duty to make sure the council has tried everything to get monies from me before reducing my JSA.

And another thing - the council also collected outstanding monies going back three years they had not bothered collecting until now. Considering it included £60 for issuing a court summons their actions make me even angrier.

Any ideas about the legality of those outrageous charges? I read through the whole Test Case thread tonight. It seems that the courts simply cannot rule against councils since that would trigger the collapse of CT collection throughout the UK.

[outlawlgo]

Re: CT and JSA

.......2005 - Went to court over a small amount because I had not paid on time. I argued my case in front of the court and was charged £15 fees (reduced by the court from £25 the council wanted)....

.....2013 (Court date 29/7) - The council wanted £154.02 from me despite my being on JSA. This was due to CT benefit being cut. My argument was that it was unlawful to reduce the money the law says I need to live on. The council was not interested and the lay judges just stared blankly, then asked the council solicitor what to do. Having said everybody else has to pay they agreed and added £80 worth of fees....

The two above examples demonstrates pretty conclusively that the Magistrates' Court hasn't got a clue. In the first instance the bench has obviously used its discretion and awarded a lesser amount of costs than the standard sum asked for by the local authority. In the second, the Magistrate has effectively stated he has no discretion as to determining the award of costs (the court has discretion).

Your simplest option is to ask the council if it will apply to Magistrates' court to have the liability order(s) quashed. However, I anticipate the chances of the council agreeing to this to be next to zero. Your only other option (as far as I'm aware) is to appeal the decision in the High Court, either by an appeal by way of a case stated (21 day time limit from issue of the liability order) or through Judicial Review (3 months time limit?).

.....Any ideas about the legality of those outrageous charges? I read through the whole Test Case thread tonight. It seems that the courts simply cannot rule against councils since that would trigger the collapse of CT collection throughout the UK.

When this case eventually gets before the High Court, the Judge will have to weigh up whether or not any aspects of the application of costs is lawful and consideration as to whether it would cause the collapse of Council Tax collection should be immaterial.

[andrewh]

Re: CT and JSA

Thanks outlawlgo. Let me be crystal clear - I stand foursquare behind you in your quest to right this grotesque wrong. I merely concluded that the repercussions of your winning the test case would be enormous.

[outlawlgo]

Re: CT and JSA

A couple of examples that should lay the myth to rest that Magistrates' court have no discretion and are obliged to award the standard costs. Here's a recent one from the Ministry of Justice in relation to Haringey Borough Council's £125 standard summons costs, the relevant bit below:

"Outside the scope of the act it may be helpful to clarify that whilst the award of costs remains a matter of judicial discretion a maximum level of costs that the local authorities may apply for has been agreed. The court cost of £125 is the maximum amount that can be asked for and does not, and cannot, fetter judicial discretion when deciding what amount to actually award.

Also at paragraph 7 of the draft case, stated by the Justices in the test case thread:

"We recognise that in all cases where costs are claimed we always have a discretion as to whether to order them, and if so, in what sum. Although the appellant admitted the matter of complaint and costs would therefore normally follow the event, the fact that the respondent asked for the normal amount of costs in this case did not prevent us from reducing the amount or refusing to make an order for costs at all.

[bluebottle]

Re: CT and JSA

From what you have said, Andrew, I would say you probably have grounds to make a formal complaint to HMCTS as regards the actions of two Injustices of the Peace and Clerk of the Court for the following reasons -

1. The two muppets who were supposed to be hearing the case who sought guidance from the Council's solicitor, which is effectively asking what decision they should make;
2. The Clerk of the Court for allowing them to do this;
3. The Clerk of the Court for allowing a hearing to proceed regardless when you had requested legal representation.

Article 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 provides you with an inalienable right to a fair hearing and legal representation. You do not appear to have had a fair hearing for the reasons stated in 1 - 3 above. I also have concerns as to the fitness of the Injustices of the Peace to sit in judgement on others and the Clerk of the Court's actions in not advising them and allowing one of the parties to dictate and effectively run the hearing.

I am currently assisting someone with a complaint to HMCTS against two JPs and a Clerk of the Court for blatant law-breaking in granting an LO to a local authority when there were no grounds in law for doing so and refusing to examine evidence that proved, beyond doubt, the local authority had no grounds in law to bring the proceedings. In addition to this, a council employee lied under oath that the defendant had not paid their CT when, in fact they had paid their CT. Notwithstanding the same local authority had done something similar two years before and their enforcement muppets managed to embarrass the local authority at a criminal appeal at the Crown Court when the judge ruled their actions unlawful. Welcome to the world of Council Tax and the corruption and fraud that goes with it. It would not surprise me if it is CT that brings this current shower, sorry, government down.

[andrewh]

Re: CT and JSA

Thanks very much for your input, very useful. I am currently going through the council's complaint procedure with the intention to write to the Local Council Ombudsman.

Any thoughts on my initial complaint which I worded thus:

"You have told me I now need to pay £4.76 in Council Tax per week. My fortnightly JSA is therefore reduced from £143.40 to £133.88 in a time of high inflation. In other words, instead of £10.24 a day I now only have £9.56 to spend on essentials.
My only source of income is Income Based Job Seeker’s Allowance. The DWP stated in their most recent letter that I am entitled to £71.70 a week which was a raise of ten pence a day compared to the previous financial year.

The same document points out the following about this amount: “This assessment is based on how much the law says you need to live on.” Consequently paying Council Tax would leave me with less than the law says I need to live on."

My neighbouring council makes up for the reduction in the council tax benefit grant they receive from central government, my council does not. There is a clear inequality which has made few waves since everybody on JSA is considered a scrounger I suspect.

[bizzybob]

Re: CT and JSA

In Wales the council tax is 100% covered by Welsh Government, but after April??????? Good luck in this anrdewh it uncovers inequities that undermine the safety net leaving people even more impoverished than the law allows.

[outlawlgo]

Re: CT and JSA

In my opinion, it's a good argument your're making against the lawfulness of the government making you pay out of benefits. The level has already been subjected to means testing and deemed by the government to be the minimum amount necessary to get by frugally.

The new reform measures introduced, means your benefits are obviously taken below that level.

EDIT:

Means testing now needs to take into account how much Council Tax is paid by the claimant (additional to before the benefit reforms), and increased in that proportion. The overall effect being "no change", except £millions of taxpayer's money spent in administration on a pointless experiment.

[bluebottle]

Re: CT and JSA

Although you should make reference to the court hearing in any complaint to the LGO, especially if any council employee committed Perjury, the manner of the proceedings is a matter for HMCTS as it brings not only the justice system, but the courts, also, into disrepute.

[andrewh]

Re: CT and JSA

EDIT:

Means testing now needs to take into account how much Council Tax is paid by the claimant (additional to before the benefit reforms), and increased in that proportion. The overall effect being "no change", except £millions of taxpayer's money spent in administration on a pointless experiment.

I am not sure what this means. JSA is the same for everybody in the UK whether their council charges them CT or not. Furthermore, the fortnightly rise of JSA from 2012 to 2013 was 10p, nothing taken into account. There is no doubt I am supposed to pay something others do not out of the same resources.

In other words - what source do you have for your statement?

[andrewh]

Re: CT and JSA

Although you should make reference to the court hearing in any complaint to the LGO, especially if any council employee committed Perjury, the manner of the proceedings is a matter for HMCTS as it brings not only the justice system, but the courts, also, into disrepute.

Having experienced a magistrate's court twice I am puzzled as to why the system is how it is. The "judges" - for that is what magistrates are - are clueless and need to be lead by professionals. If the best argument is that it is a cheap system - that would not be a good one.

[outlawlgo]

Re: CT and JSA

....In other words - what source do you have for your statement?

There is no source....merely an opinion along the lines of what I'd argue if challenging the government's decision to force payment from an amount it had already deemed to be the minimum needed to live on.

I'll rephrase what I said earlier:

In my view, to lawfully impose council tax on a claimant (where it was previously deemed unaffordable), would require any means testing to take into account the amount of Council Tax which must now be paid and benefit increased by the same amount. This would be necessary so the government acted within the law in respect of providing the minimum amount the law says is required to live on.

[bluebottle]

Re: CT and JSA

Having experienced a magistrate's court twice I am puzzled as to why the system is how it is. The "judges" - for that is what magistrates are - are clueless and need to be lead by professionals. If the best argument is that it is a cheap system - that would not be a good one.

Justices of the Peace have been responsible for many miscarriages of justices over the years. Why? The idiots who think they run the justice system select so-called "Pillars of the Community", mainly, businessmen, the hunting and shooting fraternity, and the Blue Rinse Brigade as JPs. If we are to be more accurate, they are more Pillocks of the Community, than "Pillars of the Community". When they are appointed as JPs, it is made very clear to them that they must leave their personal and political prejudices and beliefs outside the court building. The reality is, in practice, their personal and political prejudices and beliefs are out there for all to see and as far as they are concerned, if the police say someone has committed an offence, they must have and, so, therefore, they are guilty, regardless of their legal requirement to hear, test and weigh the evidence, good and bad, placed before the court and the inalienable right of the defendant to be considered innocent until proven guilty and to have a fair hearing.

There is currently a petition in progress, within the ranks of solicitors and barristers, to abolish JPs. It is an area in which solicitors and barristers share common ground.

I have seen justice dispensed by both JPs and stipendiary magistrates (now called District Judges) and, being legally-trained, stipes tend to dispense better justice.

You should pursue a complaint with HMCTS as to the manner in which the two JPs and Clerk of the Court conducted the hearing and more or less allowed the local authority solicitor to run the hearing, as well as denying you legal representation by proceeding regardless of the fact you had stated you wished to have legal representation. Isuspect that, at the end of the day, it will be found the law was broken in your case and, by this, I refer to the Human Rights Act 1998 and legislation relating to the conduct of proceedings at magistrates courts. What could HMCTS do if they uphold your complaint? They could order the case to heard again or, possibly, have the LO quashed. As for the two JPs, HMCTS could order them to be removed from the bench. And the Clerk of the Court? It will depend on what HMCTS find on investigation. If the Clerk is found to have acted without due diligence, they could face disciplinary action. If they are found to have been complicit in any breaches of the law, including any irregularities in the proceedings, they could face disciplinary action leading to dismissal, prosecution or both.

However, until HMCTS has received your complaint and investigated, we can only surmise as to what might happen.

[andrewh]

Re: CT and JSA

Many thanks for the replies. I was away yesterday and did not get the chance to respond.

(1) Any ideas, outlawlgo, who to complain to regarding the inequality issue regarding JSA and CT? I have argued with the council and made the point before the court but got nowhere. DWP? IDS?

(2) Wolfhound, is this http://www.justice.gov.uk/about/jaco...ke-a-complaint the page to start from with a magistrate's court?


Many thanks,
Andrew

[bluebottle]

Re: CT and JSA

Many thanks for the replies. I was away yesterday and did not get the chance to respond.

(1) Any ideas, outlawlgo, who to complain to regarding the inequality issue regarding JSA and CT? I have argued with the council and made the point before the court but got nowhere. DWP? IDS?

(2) Wolfhound, is this http://www.justice.gov.uk/about/jaco...ke-a-complaint the page to start from with a magistrate's court?


Many thanks,
Andrew

Hi Andrew,

Your complaint relates to the conduct of an HMCTS employee, i.e. the Clerk of the Court, and the manner in which they failed to ensure correct procedures were followed, your rights under the HRA were ignored and, indeed, violated and allowing the Complainant, i.e. the local authority, to effectively dictate how the matter should proceed, as well as apparently failing to properly advise the Justices of the Peace who were sitting in the court.

Be in no doubt, the Clerk of the Court who was present in the court on that day has some serious questions to answer. So do the two JPs.

In the first instance, the matter needs to be referred to the Correspondence, Complaints and Litigation Unit at HMCTS HQ, in London. JACO deals with complaints involving the appointment and conduct of judges. On the whole, HMCTS takes complaints against court staff seriously. This is not without good reason; if HMCTS did not take complaints seriously, the public's confidence in the justice system would collapse and the courts would quickly fall into disrepute. You can only imagine the near-anarchy that would result if that were to happen.

The postal address you need is -

Correspondence, Complaints and Litigation Unit
H.M. Courts and Tribunals Service
102 Petty France
London
SW1H 9AJ

Hope this helps.