Re: Misallocating payments and ignoring email to exploit Magistrates court costs
From: Maione, Tony
To: [outlawlgo]
Cc: [various]
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2016
Subject: RE: False statement to defraud through council tax liability application
Dear Mr [outlawlgo],
I repeat my point below that if you believe that the Courts, the police, the Local Government Ombudsman, District Audit or any combination of those, and/or any other external scrutiny should be brought to bear it is of course within your right to pursue that.
As I have already confirmed to you, my colleague Mr Hanmer (Internal Audit) has been asked to consider this matter.
The Council’s Constitution includes sections setting out the functions of the Monitoring Officer. The Council’s Constitution is available for inspection on the Council’s website.
I now consider that that this matter is being addressed appropriately and therefore will not be responding to further emails you may send of a similar nature. You will be updated as appropriate of the outcome from Mr Hanmer’s review.
Kind regards
Tony
Tony Maione, Solicitor
Chief Legal Officer and Monitoring Officer
North East Lincolnshire Council
Loading...
-
Re: Misallocating payments and ignoring email to exploit Magistrates court costs
Not only figments of my imagination. Someone, who I assume you will also accuse of imagining things made a remarkably accurate prediction in June 2013.Originally posted by Milo View Post
Originally posted by three rivers of corruption View PostLeave a comment:
-
Re: Misallocating payments and ignoring email to exploit Magistrates court costs
Some of this is set out in the drafted Grounds of appeal (from paragraph 61):Originally posted by Milo View Post
Evidence materialising of significant relevance whilst appeal held in abeyance
61. The Magistrates’ court has prevented these proceedings (as of December 2015) from reaching conclusion for over three years and as a consequence new evidence has materialised of significant relevance in the meantime. Since instituting these proceedings, pressure from various quarters has been the trigger for the Council to keep under review its level of court costs and to produce a breakdown annually supporting them. The first published set of accounts [Ex1] appeared on the Council’s website, based on activity in 2012/13 informing the standard costs charged during 2013/14.
62. The Council had before giving this undertaking provided a general description of expenditure that accounted for its annual Revenues budget which had been disclosed as £1.1 million (2011/12). This sum represented the limit up to which it considered its costs income would be lawful and presumably formed the basis upon which it was satisfied a breakdown was unnecessary. This idea is underpinned; for example, as a final safeguard in a series of checks to be satisfied its costs are claimed lawfully, the Council consistently refers to ensuring that the monies raised from costs do not exceed the cost of the service. Its website which provides information relating to council tax recovery, states with relevance to its standard summons costs, as follows:
“This figure is determined based on comparisons with the fees charged by neighbouring Councils and the national average. A check is made to ensure that the monies raised from applying costs are not greater than the actual cost of the service”
The Information Commissioner records in para 14 of Decision Notice (ref: FS50400874) relating to a Freedom of Information request made to the Council to obtain a breakdown for the calculation of the £70 summons costs:
“....NELC says it does not hold a breakdown for the calculation of the £70.00 fee, as it was based on comparisons with the fees charged by neighbouring authorities....NELC says the figure of £70 was then compared against national averages, and as previously identified checked to ensure that the monies raised from costs would not be greater than the cost of the service.”
In paragraph 6 of the same Decision Notice the Council implies that because court costs income is within its annual budget (£1.1 million) for all activity associated with recovery of Council Tax etc., it considers that its claim is lawful:
“...The [Regulations] do not require the Council to justify the amount charged to each individual, only that the costs have been reasonably incurred by the authority in connection with the application up to the time of payment or tender. The annual budget for all activity associated with recovery of Council Tax and Business rates amounts to approximately £1.1 million.”
63. The soundness of this approach – would as a starting point – have to rely on all its costs which make up its Revenues budget being permissible with reference to the Regulations which they are not. Expenditure is attributed to activities including, but not limited to processing attachments of earnings, responding to complaints, liaising with bailiffs, monitoring payment arrangements etc. All theses costs, along with others not listed (see below para 108), relate to actions carried out after the liability order has been obtained and can therefore not be described as the Regulations provide ‘an amount equal to the costs reasonably incurred by the applicant in obtaining the order’.
64. However, the costs breakdown, which has since these proceedings been policy to produce, does not assist the Council’s defence; instead it provides evidence that expenditure additional to that which the law provides was included in the £70 summons costs.
Policy to review court costs and produce annual breakdown
65. The breakdown attributed the vast majority of expenditure to instituting the complaint (the summons). Only 5% of what was accounted for as the Gross Recoverable costs was estimated as being attributed to further work in obtaining a liability order. The breakdown shows, in apparent compliance with the law, that the estimated 5% was deducted from the gross figure before dividing that sum by the number of summonses issued to arrive at the average cost per summons.
66. In accounting terms therefore, the relatively small cost attributed to additional work in obtaining a liability order after a summons has been issued is absorbed by the taxpayer. This matter has been considered recently in judicial review proceedings. Whilst the present case has been ongoing, another with significant relevance to matters raised here has been determined. In R (Nicolson) v Tottenham Magistrates [2015] EWHC 1252 (Admin) (“Nicolson v Tottenham Magistrates”) the claimant sought judicial review of the decision of justices to make an award of costs in favour of the Interested Party, London Borough of Haringey (“LBH”) following the granting of a council tax liability order concerning unpaid council tax.
67. It was agreed in Nicolson v Tottenham Magistrates (§50) that ‘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’.
68. The breakdown allowed the Council to demonstrate, in theory at least (or to an acquiescent body willing to endorse the figures), that the requirements of the Regulations were met. Under proper scrutiny however, validation would require further proof that the expenditure was reasonably incurred and the ‘gross recoverable costs’ were in fact lawfully recoverable. The very minimum that would be expected from the court to be satisfied of this would be that:
a) estimated further work attributed to obtaining the liability order was not determined as negligible, merely to justify charging all costs up front,
b) average costs do not include subsidy for bad debt arising from waived or unrecoverable costs,
c) costs do not include subsidy for administration expenditure arising from setting up payment plans, dealing with queries etc, (see Consent Order-Annex A, §128)
d) costs claimed do not include any element attributable to the expenditure of enforcing the order after it is obtained
a) Further work to obtain liability order determined as negligible
69. The calculation would have to be dismissed on the basis that it provides nothing at all that could satisfy the court that the expenditure attributed to obtaining the liability order only represented 5% of the gross recoverable costs, based as it appeared to be on an arbitrary estimate. In any event, the Council’s claim to incur the vast majority of expenditure in respect of instituting the complaint conflicts entirely with Chiltern District Council’s 16 March 2010 Cabinet report into Court costs which would reinforce justification for the court to require evidence. The essential point being made in the report is that, the majority of costs it incurs arise from the court hearing to obtain the order and the additional work required to secure payment thereafter. Paragraph 4 of the report is as follows:
“The level of costs should be realistic but reflect the fact that we do not believe in principle that it is fair to pass on the costs of recovery from the few people who default on payment of Local Taxes to the vast majority who do not. Most of the costs the Council incurs arise from the application for a liability order at Court and the additional work required to secure payment once we have the liability order.”
70. The probability that the split is random is reinforced further by the fact that the Council once weighted costs contrary to how they are applied now. In 1998/99 there were no summons costs applied; only debtors against whom liability orders were obtained had costs added. From then on the weight shifted until after the April 2011 review, the entire costs were applied on instituting the complaint (see above paras 28-29).
b) Subsidising bad debt arising from waived or unrecoverable costs
71. The calculation would have to be dismissed similarly because it could not be established whether the standard costs included a subsidy for bad debt. It is clear from subsequent breakdowns relating to 2013/14 and 2014/15 that the standard sum recharged to customers in respect of summons costs include a significant element of bad debt brought about by defendants, who for example, may have no means to pay. Those debtors are then being subsidised by those from whom payment is more easily recovered. The Council’s Cabinet report, Review of Council Tax court costs, dated 17.2.14 confirms this, as follows:
“The Council recognises the difficulties some residents have encountered in paying Council Tax as a result of Welfare Reform changes, and as a result has been more flexible with instalment arrangements. In cases where residents owe a modest amount, and have subsequently made an arrangement which clears the balance within the financial year, costs have not been applied. It is anticipated that such action will continue into 2014/15.”
72. The impact this has on the individual ‘standard cost’ can be appreciated by comparing the estimate of summonses in the calculation with the figure submitted to the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA) relating to the number of Council Tax summonses issued3. It is indicated from the Council’s breakdown (and number of summonses issued in 2013/14) that at least 42% of taxpayers against whom complaint was made were summonsed without costs applied. The CIPFA figure was 17,197 and the dividing figure used in the Council's 2013/14 calculation was 10,000. From this it is seen that the defendants actually paying the costs are paying an inflated sum to subsidise the costs of those others having them waived.
73. Put in context, at least £25 was added to the standard sum for the remaining debtors, which is conservatively estimated because no element of bad debt has been factored in to account for unrecoverable costs in those cases where they were applied.
74. The calculation confirms that the average cost per summons is determined by dividing its gross recoverable expenditure by an estimated number of summons requested where costs are applied. The recorded number of summons issued (17,197) was significantly higher than the estimated number of summons requested where costs were applied (10,000) used in the Council's 2013/14 calculation. The relevant part of the Council’s breakdown is presented as follows:
_________________Gross Recoverable costs 597,160Estimated number of summons requested in 2013/14, where costs applied 10,000 Cost per summons 59.72Cost rounded to nearest £ 60
3 A substantial number of householders summonsed were not included in the estimated number of applications, therefore artificially inflating the individual ‘standard cost’
75. Clearly if the true number of summons issued (17,197) was substituted for the 10,000 figure above, the cost per summons, based on the Council’s method of calculating the sum (disregarding other questionable expenditure), would return a sum of £34.72.
76. The disparity between the number of summonses issued and the figure used has almost certainly arisen from the effects of the Welfare Reform Act 2012 (see above paras 51-60). However, even before the Act’s introduction in April 2013 (albeit to a lesser degree), the average cost included expenditure attributable to instituting the complaint, which in a percentage of cases could not be recovered from the person summonsed. That element of expenditure was therefore subsidised by those from whom payment was obtained.
c) Subsidising administration cost for customer contact
77. The calculation would be impermissible because it includes a disproportionate amount of staff time attributable to customer contact under the budget category, ‘Council Tax’. This expenditure arises from dealing with queries/calls etc. as a consequence of issuing summonses. A second category, ‘Debt Recovery’, also includes a disproportionate amount of staff time that accounts for expenditure in negotiating, setting up and monitoring payment arrangements etc. The vast majority of this expenditure will not have been incurred by the Council in a proportion of cases, for example where the application does not proceed (by virtue of payment or tender) or where it does proceed it does simply without staff contact.
78. The gross recoverable costs under the ‘Council Tax’ budget is £260,912. Based on the Council’s computing method, this adds £25 to the cost per summons, though an element of this would arguably be legitimate only in cases where the debtor had taken up resources by engaging staff in matters connected with the summons, as this is the basis upon which the expenditure is justified.
79. The breakdown explicitly sets out that its recoverable costs (after deducting 30% for routine billing activity from the ‘Council Tax’ budget) is in the ratio of calls arising from summonses to calls arising from reminders that do not result in a summons. The final recoverable costs for those proceeding to summons is a sum estimated as 50% (£260,912) with the other half attributed to what the Council categorises as ‘those paying on time’.
80. None of the expenditure could have lawfully been incurred by the Council in respect of the Appellant’s summons simply because the assumptions on which the calculation was based were that each person against whom complaint is made would take up resources by engaging with staff in one way or another in matters connected with the summons.
81. Gross recoverable costs under the ‘Debt Recovery’ budget are £327,806 and add £31 to the cost per summons. A £3 fixed cost is budgeted for in this category and payable on making complaint to the justices for each application. This element is therefore justly claimed in respect of every summons issued and so in the present case can have been considered reasonably incurred by the Council.
82. With the account having been settled on receipt of the summons, none of the other expenditure could have been incurred by the Council in respect of the Appellant’s summons because there was no outstanding liability. No resources were therefore called upon to negotiate, re-schedule or monitor any payment plan and the whole element of costs relevant to the ‘Debt Recovery’ budget, except £3 court application fee would be impermissible.
83. In broader terms, the majority, if not all (see below paras 93-96) of the costs appear questionable even in those cases where resources are required to re-schedule and set up payment plans etc.
84. Additional to the statutory Regulation’s instalment scheme, regulation 21(5) provides for an agreement to be made between the billing authority and the liable person either before or after the annual bill is issued. In such cases, a debtor may, if the agreement is kept, avoid incurring summons costs. However, this is enabled by, and at the cost of the Council re-scheduling and monitoring the plan which must exceed any that would have been incurred from simply allowing the pre-set parameters in its council tax processing system trigger the appropriate action uninterrupted by recovery staff.
85. Additional administration costs incurred by the Council due to the interruption of the automated process cannot lawfully be included in the recoverable costs from which the average summons is computed because the extra recovery work caused is unrelated to those cases that result in a summons. Neither can the cost be recovered from customers, for whom the re-scheduled payments are made (see Consent Order-Annex A, §101), because the measure is taken to prevent (or instead of) taking recovery action.
86. This expenditure must therefore be absorbed by the Council in a way consistent with other administrative functions – processing benefit claims for example. The line of reasoning that follows removes any ambiguity that the Regulations might allow for this administration cost to be subsidised by those against whom complaint is made to the Magistrates’ court:
• in order for a billing authority to recharge costs to the debtor, it is required first to make complaint to the Magistrates’ court; but
• where applications to the court are not made (by virtue of flexible payment plans being arranged), potential rechargeable administrative costs in those cases are rendered unrecoverable from those for whom the concessions are made
• expenditure can therefore only be met by inflating the standard sum or alternatively having the cost borne by the taxpayer; however
• where complaint is made, the amount claimed must not exceed what is reasonably incurred by the authority in an individual case. Clearly no expenditure attributable to assisting the debtor avoid recovery is incurred by the Council which is referable to those debtors summonsed because none of those for whom concessions are made are proceeded against;
• to that end, it would have to be treated as an unavoidable cost in administering council tax as it would be unlawful to have this element of expenditure subsidised by inflating the standard costs.
87. Notwithstanding that there is no legislative provision to recover this cost, the sheer size of the estimated recoverable component, indicates that it must be funding far more resource intensive functions than merely an automated process, upon which instituting the summons relies. Engaging with customers for example, would far outweigh the demand on resources and it likely that even expenditure in respect of work done after securing the order is included, as almost a third of a million pounds annually is accounted for.
88. Even before the Welfare Reform changes the Council has implied through various documents, reports etc., that its standard costs include subsidy for bad debt and/or for administration expenditure attributable to assisting the debtor avoid recovery. In a budget consultation in 2010 (see Consent Order-Annex A, §§120-131) particularly §125 the Council stated that ‘the number of summons issued has reduced over the last 2 financial years due the work that is being done to make more flexible arrangements with debtors at an early stage’.
89. On 29.11.12, the Grimsby Telegraph published an article informing readers how council tax arrears are recovered. At the final notice stage it stated ‘the council gives the opportunity to bring the account up to date and continue with instalments if the customer agrees to a direct debit’.
90. The Council has a ‘Debt Management Strategy’ which provides more insight into how the subsidy element of court costs is increased to fund the Council’s campaign to secure a greater take-up of account holders who pay by direct debit. Paragraphs 10.7 & 10.8 state so far as is relevant as follows:
“10.7 When recovery action has commenced payment arrangements will only be entered into when the debt is secured by a liability order or the debtor agrees to make payment by direct debit......
......................
10.8 In exceptional circumstances special payment arrangements may be made by authorised staff prior to a liability order being obtained and without the debtor agreeing to pay by direct debit.”
91. This raises two issues; one that expenditure is incurred by the Council for work attributed to customer contact in setting up payment arrangements, for example, where payment is agreed by direct debit, and as a consequence, no order is obtained nor court costs incurred by the debtor. The other concerns the Council’s application for an order to protect its interest where circumstances are not exceptional, and where no agreement is made to pay by direct debit (thus costs are incurred by the debtor).
92. Inflating the standard sum for the purpose of subsidising bad debt has been asserted already to be unlawful. However, there is also an exploitative element linked to the offer of having court costs withdrawn as bargaining power to persuade taxpayers to sign up to the Council's preferred payment method. This goes beyond just subsidising bad debt as it exploits those against whom costs are applied by inflating summons costs to directly fund the Council’s campaign to secure a greater take-up of direct debit. The success of which depends entirely on the volume of costs that are waived.
93. Where the Council allows for an arrangement to be entered into, conditioned upon obtaining a liability order to protect its interests, those debtors are liable for costs so theoretically that expenditure is recovered from those driving the level of activity. It is however contested, even under these circumstances, that the law makes no provision for its recovery. In that case, no cost referable to the Regulations, whether attributable to bad debt or subsidising arrangements before recovery has begun, will be recoverable.
94. As a simple matter of statutory construction, it is evident that the Regulations do not condition that a liability order may be applied for where there has been tendered to the authority the aggregate of the two sums described in parts (a) and (b) of sub-paragraph 34(5), as follows (emphasis added):
“(5) If, after a summons has been issued in accordance with paragraph (2) but before the application is heard, there is paid or tendered to the authority an amount equal to the aggregate of—
(a) the sum specified in the summons as the sum outstanding or so much of it as remains outstanding (as the case may be); and
(b) a sum of an amount equal to the costs reasonably incurred by the authority in connection with the application up to the time of the payment or tender,
the authority shall accept the amount and the application shall not be proceeded with.”
95. Considering the relevant provisions of the Regulations in the context of a payment arrangement being agreed once recovery action had commenced, it is a reasonable understanding that the re-scheduling is made as a consequence of a formal offer or proposal. It is also a reasonable understanding of the terminology used in regulation 34(5) that a “tender” is used in the context of a formal offer, in response to which the authority must accept and the application not be proceeded with.
96. In that case, it would not simply mean there was no longer a lawful avenue to proceed further and request a liability order, but also that the cost attributable to the work involved in making the arrangement could not lawfully be included in the costs claimed. Expenditure may only be recharged that has been incurred by the authority up to the time of the tender and clearly resources called upon by engaging staff in the matter would occur after the payment was tendered.
97. It follows therefore that the associated costs, even in cases were payment plans are re-scheduled (pre or post enforcement commencing), can not include any element of expenditure which is attributable to controlling or monitoring those plans as this activity must logically follow reschedulement. Gross recoverable costs under the ‘Control & Monitoring’ budget are £143,215 and add £14 to the cost per summons and would, if referring to rescheduled payment plans (in whole or in part) be unrecoverable in the appropriate proportion.
98. If the recoverable amount under the ‘Control & Monitoring’ category budgets for checking account details before instituting recovery, then that would be wholly unjustifiable because there are no demonstrable checks. All papers served on the defendant in connection with the application are generated as a consequence of settings in the council tax software. Parameters are agreed in advance by the relevant manager and set in its Council Tax processing system relating to the number of days behind and the monetary value etc., and summonses issued on this basis.
99. If any doubt arises that the Council does not totally rely on the automated procedure and there may possibly be staff double checking the bulk court applications, then this can be disproved beyond all reasonable doubt. It is provable that the Appellant has, where all payments have been up to date, been subjected to recovery by the Council due to a deficiency in its Council Tax processing system which would have been highlighted if a manual check into payments made on the account had been carried out prior to instituting the complaint.
100. In explaining how the recovery action had wrongly been instituted it is helpful if some background is provide into the payment system relied upon by the Council to automatically allocate payments when the council is owed money for past years as well as the current year.
101. The Council’s software has built in allocation rules to ensure, so far as is practical in an automated system, that the law with respect to specified payments is met. Case law from 1814 (Peters v Anderson (1814) 5 Taunt 596) still relevant, held that "A person who is indebted to another on two several accounts, may, on paying him money, ascribe it to which account he pleases...and his election may either be expressed....or may be inferred from the circumstances of the transaction.”
102. In respect of payment allocation for different year’s accounts, processing systems rely on transactions matching exactly the instalment amount set for the relevant year in the software’s parameters. Inevitably payments for various reasons will not always be made in the exact manner that the system requires to function correctly, so the system can not be claimed to provide a fail safe solution to ensuring the law is complied with.
103. If a payment is made which doesn't exactly match an instalment amount, where a taxpayer has more than one account with an outstanding balance, then the system automatically allocates payment to the oldest debt. If payment was intended for the current year’s liability then potentially that account will go unpaid and may lead to instalment withdrawal, demand for the whole balance immediately and ultimately being charged court costs.
104. During the period in which the defendant court has unreasonably protracted proceedings, the Appellant’s liability has included an additional sum ‘subject to court proceedings’ which appears on the bill as a separate balance from the current liability. Complexities have caused the Council’s system to misallocate payments to the additional sum on three occasions because parameters have triggered payment to reduce the previous year’s liability. In respect of the first misallocation, recovery was halted before a summons was served because the Local Government Ombudsman intervened. For the subsequent mistakes, recovery did proceed further and resulted in a summons being served on both occasions.
105. Checks would have verified that payment was made in full and that the balance against which payment was allocated incorrectly, related to court costs that were in any event suspended until the outcome of the proceedings. The absence of manual checks is an obvious concern as is the unreliable way payment allocation relies on exact sums matching set parameters; however, these are secondary to the matters in the present case. It is not the issue that there are no manual checks, rather, there can be no justifiable expenditure attributable to debt recovery officers monitoring accounts in respect of checks that are not carried out.
d) Administration cost of enforcing the order after it is obtained
106. The judgment in Nicolson v Tottenham Magistrates goes a step further than clarifying the position regarding recharging expenditure for obtaining the liability order in respect of the costs which are applied in connection with serving the summons (the second question of law on which opinion is sought). Paragraph 35 of the judgment states as follows (emphasis added):
“It is clear that there must be a sufficient link between the costs in question and the process of obtaining the liability order. It would obviously be impermissible (for example) to include in the costs claimed any element referable to the costs of executing the order after it was obtained, or to the overall administration of council tax in the area concerned.”
107. At around £0.3m, the ‘Debt Recovery’ budget which adds £31 to each summons has been shown to be disproportionate for processes that are largely automated. The most feasible explanation would be that expenditure in respect of work done after securing the order is included. Administrative work at this stage does not seem to lend itself to automation and is much more likely to be performed manually considering the type of activities which are undertaken. This would give credence to Chiltern Council’s claim (see above para 69) that the work to secure payment once having obtained the liability order is one of the stages from which most costs arise.
108. To put the additional recovery expenditure incurred into context, staff engage in activities ranging from notifying the debtor of possible further action to applying to the court for commitment to prison. Information must be obtained about the debtor’s circumstances in order to assess whether accounts are more suitable for attachments of earnings, deduction from benefits or referral to bailiffs. Where those measures fail to obtain payment then staff might engage in further recovery work, for example applying to the court for charging orders or instigating bankruptcy. Similarly to pre court action arrangements, terms of mutually acceptable payment plans might simply be agreed, albeit still requiring resources to correspond with debtors, re-schedule instalments and then monitor accounts until settled. For all stages, staff must be available for dealing with queries whether by telephone or written correspondence.
109. It is therefore believed, that on the balance of probabilities (regardless of the Regulations), these costs are recharged to the debtor in a bid to minimise the financial burden on the taxpayer in general, which would appear to be the ends for which disregarding the law is justified.
CONCLUSION
110. The Magistrates had no information before them with which to reach a proper judicial determination of whether the costs claimed represented costs reasonably incurred by the Council to obtain the liability order. The ruling in Nicolson v Tottenham Magistrates is unambiguous that the decision to grant an order for costs in those circumstances is unlawful. It is therefore inconceivable what line of defence could be mounted against an appeal asserting that the order for costs had been unlawful in the present case.
111. It follows with the Council’s inability to provide relevant information to support the costs claimed to obtain a liability order, it would be unable to verify that the costs claimed were properly referable to the enforcement process. That is to say it would be unable to verify that the sum, which it claims identically to obtain the order, represents exclusively the expenditure incurred by the Council in connection with instituting the complaint.
112. It is nevertheless contested that enforcement should have never proceeded to the stage where the Council applied for a liability order as to do so once an amount has been paid or tendered would be in breach of the law which states that “the authority shall accept the amount and the application shall not be proceeded with”. However, the fact that the Council did proceed does not render the appeal invalid as the Magistrates’ actions and the Council’s approach to supporting its costs raises matters of general public importance.
Case for impermissible costs
113. It is established that 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. It is therefore contended that an element of the standard £70 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.
114. The breakdown of costs which the Council has undertaken to keep under review provides evidence that in the circumstances relating to this case the vast majority of expenditure it claimed was not incurred so contended that the Magistrates granted costs in a sum outside that which the law provides. Moreover it is contended that under any circumstances where the Council makes use of the court (whether to obtain an order, or merely institute the process) the costs detailed in its breakdown are not properly referable to regulation 34 of the Regulations.
115. There is nothing in the calculation that could remotely satisfy the court that the expenditure attributed to its standard costs was referable to the court application at the prescribed time, neither in the Appellant’s individual case nor as an average of those against whom complaint was made. The spreadsheet is however indicative of a breakdown of the Council’s expenditure for council tax enforcement and recovery which would incorporate impermissible costs. The application, for which the Council may claim costs, simply involves a process to obtain the court’s permission to enforce payment and nothing more. There is no vehicle through which a billing authority may lawfully recharge expenditure it incurs to the defendant beyond that process.
116. The law further restricts costs with the provision for incrementally applying them, first in a sum for making complaint and the further amount (if required) on making the application. Singly applying standard costs in respect of making complaint would be lawful only if the authority were to forfeit the element of expenditure it incurs subsequently in respect of the court application.
117. The amount claimed by way of costs in any individual case must be no more than that reasonably incurred by the billing authority. Therefore, 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 accounted for in its breakdown).
118. Put another way, a standard sum could not exceed that incurred by the Council 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’ which is split between an estimated number of summons, is not referable to the Regulation; 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.
119. 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.
120. If the costs were applied in accordance with the Regulations, the consequences would be that the majority of ‘Council Tax’ (£260,912), ‘Debt Recovery’ (£327,806) and the ‘Control & Monitoring’ costs (£143,215) would not be permissible in respect of re-charging expenditure for instituting the complaint. The Council has itself provided the relevant evidence to satisfy the court that the Council's claim is not reasonable in the Regulation’s context and should therefore seek to award lower costs accordingly.Last edited by outlawlgo; 4th June 2016, 15:00:PM.Leave a comment:
-
Re: Misallocating payments and ignoring email to exploit Magistrates court costs
Thank you for your response CC.Originally posted by Crazy council View Post
Whilst the above is very interesting, it does not answer how Outlawlgo came to the decision in 2012 that £10 was all that North East Lincs Council could legally charge him. This one point alone is central to the entire dispute that has been ongoing since 2012.Leave a comment:
-
Re: Misallocating payments and ignoring email to exploit Magistrates court costs
I can jump in there [MENTION=30402]Milo[/MENTION] [MENTION=8136]outlawlgo[/MENTION] is pushing it a bit but he is justified. ( i havent read all this thread )
I have done the calculations for NELC for the period 2004 - 2011 to verify something, the actual costs were between 12 and 22 pounds, changes in the way they did there administration give the variation.
Thjere is something else as well that makes it very hard for people to understand, Its different around here ( NELC ) , there is a system within a system for hiding mistakes around liability orders, and makling it impossible for the public to sort out, and its the court team from the council, that are administering it that way
All councils legal and admin senior ( 151 officer and monitoring officer ) are mesured by a rate of sucsess in how council tax is collected.
NELC manipulated these figures from 2004, and they way they are manipulated, the public end up paying for both CT and costs that arent owed.
Re The Revs approach --- I understand his points but think he has approached it in the wrong way,Leave a comment:
-
Re: Misallocating payments and ignoring email to exploit Magistrates court costs
Outlawlgo,
Finally, I have finished reading all of the posts and articles and FOI requests.
I have a query (and it's one that I notice that nobody has ever asked you before).
Your entire dispute centres solely upon your own decision in 2012 that the summons cost of £70 was too much. You considered that £10 was all that North East Lincs Council should legally charge you. Accordingly, you paid £10 and deliberately left a balance remaining of £60.
Would you mind explaining how you came to the decision that £10 was justifiable?Leave a comment:
-
Re: Misallocating payments and ignoring email to exploit Magistrates court costs
From: [outlawlgo]
To: Maione, Tony
Cc: [various]
Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2016
Subject: Re: False statement to defraud through council tax liability application
Dear Mr Maione,
It doesn't look like it's going to be easy having any of the concerns I've raised addressed regarding the corruption at North East Lincolnshire Council; nobody it seems has the balls to take any responsibility.
You have however confirmed that the statutory function, which as Monitoring Officer you have a duty to carry out, is not being fulfilled in the way defined in law. It is still not known whether you have looked at the papers, although the evidence leads me to think not because on proper consideration you would be left with no option than to take responsibility for dealing with the matter as it is inconceivable what line of defence could be mounted against the claim.
I would like the Monitoring Officer's role defining from the council's perspective because it differs from my understanding. The impression given is the person holding office is expected to provide legal representation for the Council in defence against legal challenge. However, I understand the role should function in a way to ensure that the Council, its Officers, etc., maintain the highest standards of conduct and should report on matters that are, or are likely to be, illegal or amount to maladministration within the council.
If the latter description defines the proper function then it would be your duty as opposed to my right to involve the relevant bodies, be that the police, Court, External Audit etc.
I would like all the matters which have not been addressed that I raised in previous correspondence dealing with and being informed how I can be sure that the matter is being properly addressed.
Yours sincerelyLeave a comment:
-
Re: Misallocating payments and ignoring email to exploit Magistrates court costs
:lol:Originally posted by Milo View Post
Always with the 'later today' with you. Why should anyone give a fig when you say that? Do you really believe that anyone sits waiting on tenterhooks for your sainted reply? Madness.
Outlaw's case could prove to be very useful to anyone else in such a situation. He neither asked nor intended for the payment he made to be offset against old arrears, which if you recall are in dispute. By doing this, the council ensured his current year's CT fell into arrears, thus engineering more costs. Does that seem fair and proper to you?
There most definitely is an obsession with Outlaw, otherwise you wouldn't be following him around the web picking quotes from his posts. Just leave him be. Don't report on in. It's no skin off your nose how many FoI's he sends, or what name he chooses to use. It's of no concern to you. However, it seems your obsession won't allow you to do so.
I was going to post something else about some other subject but I thought I'd write this unnecessary sentence instead to let you know that I will return at a later time to post it.Leave a comment:
-
Re: Misallocating payments and ignoring email to exploit Magistrates court costs
You can keep on embarrassing yourself, but don't think you're going to waste any more of my time than the small amount I have to find this (all related threads saved by the way):Originally posted by Milo View Post
The Reverend is welcome
I'd already located the following and decided against posting, but thinking again it's appropriate you're reminded.Originally Posted by tomtubby
outlawla.
I have sent a lot of your information to Paul in the last few days and his comment below if from an email that I received from him a few moments ago:
"Very many thanks for all this. I will read, mark, learn and inwardly digest" !!
The Reverend is welcome to any (hopefully relevant) information I have. Since HMCTS has blocked an attempt to bring a case before the High Court (Application 22 November 2012) there has been a fair amount of time for additional material to surface which will reinforce the case. Some of that happens to be directly connected with Haringey.
During the 20 or so months the Magistrates' Court has been obstructing the case coming before the High Court by stonewalling and ultimately lying, it has shown the justice system to be wholly dysfunctional; having lost sight of its role...
Who is in contact with the Reverend?
And....Originally Posted by tomtubby
I am sorry but I would be very surprised indeed if the Reverend or his legal team had read any posts of yours on forums. I truly am suprised at your reply given that I genuinly believed that you had been in touch with the Reverend from the early stages of his complaint. I am sure that other regulars on here share my opinion that there can be nobody else with such in depth knowledge of the subject matter (summons costs) than you. You really must contact the Reverend asap.
I thought it was yourself who had been in touch and spoken to the Reverend.
One of those 'Scribed' documentsOriginally posted by Milo View Post
outlawla,
I have only had a chance to glance through the Grounds for Appeal and will have a good read with a glass of white later this evening !!!
My first impression is that this is an EXCELLENT document !!!!
The current position is that many local authorities are currently reeling under the pressure of FOI requests and complaints regarding the level of fees charge and this is causing them GREAT CONCERN.Leave a comment:
-
Re: Misallocating payments and ignoring email to exploit Magistrates court costs
I will try to answer your above points.Originally posted by Big Al View Post
Firstly, there is no 'unhealthy interest' at all in reading Outlawlgo's posts on here or his many Freedom of Information requests on the 'WhatdoTheyKnow' website.
Outlawla is not pursuing a case about possible illegal fees at all. He has no need to.
The subject of 'summons costs' etc has already been subject to a very high profile court case initiated by the Reverend Nicholson. He lost his case. He appealed and that case was also lost and sadly, he has been ordered to pay over £50,000 in costs.
I know the Reverend well, and I fully supported his legal argument and indeed, provided him with a significant amount of documentation. Unlike Outlaw, the Reverend did not pursue his case for his own personal benefit. He pursued the case on behalf of all the low income families and single parents etc from his local authority area.
In order to bring the Reverend's attention to the media, I started a thread on the CAG forum that brought many thousands of viewers. In the initial stages, Outlaw was an excellent contributor providing details of summons costs from other local authorities. He would also ensure that any news reports and updates from the Reverend's website were posted on the forum. With the wealth of documentary evidence that he had accumulated from approx half of all local authorities, it was generally considered that he had shared this important information with the Reverend or his legal team. He had not bothered to do so. This was only known after he lost his appeal.
PS: I have not as yet addressed your point about the way in which the council allocated his payments. I will do so later today.Last edited by Milo; 29th May 2016, 09:47:AM.Leave a comment:
-
Re: Misallocating payments and ignoring email to exploit Magistrates court costs
Another threat, but this time they've added £75.00 where as the previous one was merely a threat.
This notice must be given by the enforcement agent or the enforcement agent's office___________
Notice of enforcement – Rossendales
Please read this notice - it is important
Date notice issued 25th May 2016
About this notice You have been sent this notice of enforcement because you have not paid money that you owe.
Who you owe money to North East Lincolnshire Council
The amount you owe them £ 211.00Enforcement details Details of the court judgement or order or enforcement power by virtue of which the debt is enforceable
A Liability Order has been granted against you on the 30/10/2015 for non payment of Council Tax and costs at XY Xxxx Yyyy, Grimsby, DNXY XXY:Sum outstanding Debt £ 211.00
Interest £0.00
Compliance stage fee £75.00
TOTAL sum
outstanding £286.00
(as at the date of this notice)If you do not payWhen to make
paymentYou must pay, or agree a payment arrangement with the enforcement agent, by:
Date 18th June 2016
Time 23:59
If you do not pay or agree a payment arrangement by the date above, an enforcement agent will visit you and may seize your belongings - this is called 'taking control'. These belongings may then be sold to pay the money you owe. These actions will increase the costs of enforcement and these costs will be added to the amount already owed.
Possible additional fees and expenses of enforcement
If the sum outstanding remains unpaid or you have not agreed a payment arrangement by the date and time above you may be charged the following (enforcement agent to detail further possible fees and expenses)
Fee schedule..... see linkLeave a comment:
-
Re: Misallocating payments and ignoring email to exploit Magistrates court costs
Milo, you make comment on how long Outlaw has spent pursuing this case yet you cannot see your own unhealthy interest in following him all over the web making comments about his posts.
You call his case a 'grudge' against various authorities, but what would your response be if the council allocated a payment you made in respect of the current year's council tax against disputed arrears from several years ago - the effect of this allocation meaning the current year falls into arrears, leading to a LO and further costs?
You ignore the conduct of the Magistrate which led to him having to repay tens of thousands of pounds - of course, the closed shop did not consider this fraud but 'inefficiency'. the fact it happened 20 times seems lost on them, but seeing as you have a history of your own 'inefficiencies' perhaps you relate better than the rest of us plebs.
Outlaw is pursing a case that has unnecessarily and perhaps illegally engineered extra costs, yet you belittle and bemoan him. I assume you therefore have the same opinion of the Rev Nicholson in his long-standing battle against unjust costs.
If you don't like what Outlaw is doing then ignore it instead of tracking him across cyberspace sticking your oar in.Leave a comment:
-
Re: Misallocating payments and ignoring email to exploit Magistrates court costs
I know where it's heading as well !!Originally posted by outlawlgo View Post
It's taken you over eight years and you have managed to engineer a position where you can start all over again.
This is a link to your first post on here from 2010. The username that you picked to join the forum with demonstrated clearly that you had a pre-existing ‘grudge’ with the Local Government Ombudsman.
http://legalbeagles.info/forums/show...ht=#post155804
As you will see from this post, you had complained about fees charged by Rossendales bailiffs and the fact that a ‘levy’ had been put on a vehicle that was not owned by you.
For the best part of 4 years, you made hundreds of FOI requests regarding your complain. But what was very odd indeed, was that you did so in the full knowledge that Rossendales had returned your account back to North East Lincs Council and the bailiff fees and ‘levy’ were therefore of no consequence to you whatsoever!! Not that the fees were of any consequence anyway given that in 2010 you stated the following:
I better mention that the fees are not an issue here as such, because I refused to pay or have any contact whatsoever with Rossendales
On quite a few occasions I advised you that the correct course of action if you wished to challenge bailiff fees, was to make an application to the county court for a Detailed Assessment. It is obvious why you chose to pursue a different route.
Last edited by Milo; 29th May 2016, 09:42:AM.Leave a comment:
-
Re: Misallocating payments and ignoring email to exploit Magistrates court costs
OutlawlgoOriginally posted by Milo View Post
I know that your days are taken up with issuing more and more Freedom of Information requests, but it would have been nice to have had a response to this important question.
After all, your previous court appearance did not go very well at all with the Judge stating that he had "listened for half-an-hour to a political diatribe, only 5 minutes of which made sense".
Following that hearing, you publicly stated that the judge was an 'unashamed fraud' and as:
' corrupt as all the other parasites to which the government pay taxpayers money for the purposes of oppressing".
You are currently attempting to start another legal action; this time a Judicial Review. If granted, will you attend that hearing?
What will happen if you lose (which is likely)? Will you once again accuse those Judges of being 'unashamed frauds' or of being 'corrupt'?Last edited by Milo; 29th May 2016, 09:44:AM.Leave a comment:
-
Re: Misallocating payments and ignoring email to exploit Magistrates court costs
In for a penny...
Crime report to Humberside Police
26 May 2016
North East Lincolnshire Council has appointed Rossendale’s bailiffs to enforce alleged outstanding Council Tax. I have become aware about this after receiving a letter dated 11 May 2016 from the enforcement firm.
There is no money owed. The council engineered the debt and did so criminally by lying to the court. This matter is known to Humberside police and although the force has decided against investigating the matter it may now that there are further consequences need to review its decision. Incidentally, evidence which proves the allegations beyond all reasonable doubt has been provided to the force. In assistance I will provide you with the relevant reference which is CO 461/15.
Rossendale’s letter refers to a schedule of fees which had not been enclosed, perhaps due to an oversight or because the generic letter had not been updated and contained information that was once necessary but not now. In any event, I believe those fees are likely to amount to £310, comprising a £75 compliance fee and £235 enforcement charge which when added to the unwarranted summons costs will amount to £430. It is therefore reasonable to assume that at this stage the sum that the council will attempt to defraud me of will be £430.
In reference to CO 461/15, my prediction had the makings of being accurate. See quoted paragraphs of my 30 December 2015 email to Inspector Allan Harvey in this matter:
"Action needs taking sooner rather than later to ensure that the immediate consequences of the fraud is remedied. This will not be achieved by having to complete complaint and subsequent appeal procedures which guarantee nothing at the end. The appropriate level of investigation can be evaluated after the immediate risk of the consequences of the crimes have been removed.
The consequences do not stop at the fraudulently obtained court cost. Unnecessary enforcement measures will follow, incurring additional costs which will accumulate over time to be sufficient in amount that the council will achieve its vindictive aim and be able to take insolvency, bankruptcy or custodial action."
NELC's Revenues & Benefits service has not as you would have expected considered it a close shave to have avoided being the subject of a fraud investigation, but emboldened it to take further liberties with the law and seen it as a green light to continue its vendetta.
As I’m sure the force knows where this is heading, I expect now would be an appropriate time to have this matter investigated.Leave a comment:
Leave a comment: