Judicial Review of Haringey's £125 Liability Order costs succeeds

[Amethyst]

Re: Judicial Review of Haringey's £125 Liability Order costs succeeds

As they would I suppose.

I was just trying to get my head around to agreeing with Rev nicholson about it being a tax on the poor specifically ( as as far as I see it it is a tax on everyone who doesn't pay their CT on time etc) Non-'poor' people don't pay their council tax at times either ( other things come up, disorganised etc) and have the same summons & hearing charges. I can't help feeling he is going down the wrong route.

[outlawlgo]

Re: Judicial Review of Haringey's £125 Liability Order costs succeeds

I can't help feeling he is going down the wrong route.

I see what you mean. Judges are not concerned about fairness, for example if there was a law allowing the government to help itself to the saving of anyone with less than £1,000 in the bank, and someone appealed the government's decision to take the whole lot, a judge would determine the case in favour of the state, and be proud of the fact he had come to the right decision, despite the absurdity of it.

Having said that, the Reverend's arguments do not solely surround the unfairness. The points he makes about the liability order hearing costs being front loaded to the summons are valid and I think the High Court chose not to acknowledge this, preferring perhaps to accept a cobbled together breakdown.

[Amethyst]

Re: Judicial Review of Haringey's £125 Liability Order costs succeeds

Personally I think it is fair to charge the same across the board, regardless of your incomings/outgoings.... but them I'm a bit of a flat rate tax supporter as well.

The points he makes about the liability order hearing costs being front loaded to the summons are valid

I agree. It's a shame he's choosing to concentrate on the 'unemployed' in his press stuff. If it is unlawful / unfair to add the hearing cost in with the summons cost it is of no consequence whatsoever how much the household in question earns.

I support what he is doing, I think he might have lost his way a little with the campaigning for the poor angle.

[charitynjw]

Re: Judicial Review of Haringey's £125 Liability Order costs succeeds

As they would I suppose.

I was just trying to get my head around to agreeing with Rev nicholson about it being a tax on the poor specifically ( as as far as I see it it is a tax on everyone who doesn't pay their CT on time etc) Non-'poor' people don't pay their council tax at times either ( other things come up, disorganised etc) and have the same summons & hearing charges. I can't help feeling he is going down the wrong route.

Having been to the kangaroo court re LOs, it was my observation that, of those who were summonsed & attended, the vast majority seemed pretty potless.

(Could be we've got more than our fair share of eccentric millionaires/clergyfolk, I suppose!) :biggrin1:

[Crazy council]

Re: Judicial Review of Haringey's £125 Liability Order costs succeeds

I can't help feeling he is going down the wrong route.

agreed, on the charges for court costs and liability orders, they do not take off corrections

thery say, process 100 accounts as LOs, they charge both the phone and staff time , they say that costs 100 per account ( just an example ) , ( say costs of 1000 ie £ 10 per order ), although, out of them 100, 42 end up being removed/corrected leaving just 68

They dont remove there time and costs for there mistakes from the charges. Ie the 42 false LO accounts, dont pay a thing, the 58 left, pay for the mistakes as well.

[outlawlgo]

Re: Judicial Review of Haringey's £125 Liability Order costs succeeds

agreed, on the charges for court costs and liability orders, they do not take off corrections

thery say, process 100 accounts as LOs, they charge both the phone and staff time , they say that costs 100 per account ( just an example ) , ( say costs of 1000 ie £ 10 per order ), although, out of them 100, 42 end up being removed/corrected leaving just 68

They dont remove there time and costs for there mistakes from the charges. Ie the 42 false LO accounts, dont pay a thing, the 58 left, pay for the mistakes as well.

That also goes for expenditure in respect of work in preparing and issuing summonses in cases where discretion is used to waive costs, for example, if the debtor agrees to pay by direct debit. This expenditure is also not recovered from the defendant summonsed and therefore those who do pay the costs must be subsidising work done in respect of proceedings brought against those for whom costs are waived.

Ironically, it is the people having their costs waived who cause the most significant amount of work through having to arrange payment plans and then continually monitor them.

[outlawlgo]

Re: Judicial Review of Haringey's £125 Liability Order costs succeeds

Nuther update:

Media Notice; High Court bamboozled by Haringey Council and Grant Thornton UK their External Auditors

[Openlaw15]

Re: Judicial Review of Haringey's £125 Liability Order costs succeeds

I see what you mean. Judges are not concerned about fairness, for example if there was a law allowing the government to help itself to the saving of anyone with less than £1,000 in the bank, and someone appealed the government's decision to take the whole lot, a judge would determine the case in favour of the state, and be proud of the fact he had come to the right decision, despite the absurdity of it.

Having said that, the Reverend's arguments do not solely surround the unfairness. The points he makes about the liability order hearing costs being front loaded to the summons are valid and I think the High Court chose not to acknowledge this, preferring perhaps to accept a cobbled together breakdown.

Judicial review is not meant to be about what is fair, as that is obviously subjective in that if you were the council your view would be that if the judicial review went against you it would be unfair. JR is rather about whether the decision-maker, ie the council has made their decision based within their rules, ie is their decision ultra vires or not. If it was thought to be ultra vires then the High Court can refer the decision back to them or quash it. However the judge cannot normally interfere with the decision as there is seemingly a separation of powers within the branches of government (ie courts versus local government). The only times it would based on case law is that if there were bias, wrong use of powers, misunderstanding powers, misunderstanding the facts to which the power were applied etc. Do you have copy of the case?

[outlawlgo]

Re: Judicial Review of Haringey's £125 Liability Order costs succeeds

...Do you have copy of the case?

I'd like to see the judgment, but perhaps more crucially the calculation (assuming one was submitted) of the costs and any other information which convinced LJ Hamblen that the the expenditure had been incurred in accordance with the relevant legislation and the recent ruling from May 2015.

Without even delving into the detail, a decision could be arrived at that the aggregate cost of the summons – which by virtue of them being applied on issue (or before) – could not possibly account for 76% of the total budget for Council Tax Admin and Recovery (£ 2.89 million from a total £3.78).

Just to give credence to a statement made by one local authority that the work to secure payment once having obtained the liability order is one of the stages from which most costs arise (the other being the application for a liability order at Court), 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.

All the above activities relate to an element of the Council Tax admin & recovery budget, which may not lawfully be included in the costs recharged to the summons, or for that matter the liability order hearing.

This all tells you one thing which is that issuing summonses, which are generated automatically as a consequence of settings in the council tax software, can not account for 76% of the whole Council Tax operation.

EDIT: If you look at another breakdown for the same year, the element attributed to instituting the summons (aggregate) amounts to 88% of the total budget for Council Tax Admin and Recovery (£3.03 million from a total £3.44).

[outlawlgo]

Re: Judicial Review of Haringey's £125 Liability Order costs succeeds

Some more media coverage...

Reverend to appeal high court judgement dismissing case against council tax charges

[Lavender2013]

Re: Reverend Paul Nicholson challenges Haringey Council’s ‘unfair’ costs in court

Hiya
I would like to message someone at legal beagles in private how do i do that please.
Thanks
Lavender2013

[Kati]

Re: Reverend Paul Nicholson challenges Haringey Council’s ‘unfair’ costs in court

Hiya
I would like to message someone at legal beagles in private how do i do that please.
Thanks
Lavender2013

You could send me a PM (click on my name and choose "Private Message" from the drop down box) ... I'll make sure your message gets passed on xx

[Lavender2013]

Re: Judicial Review of Haringey's £125 Liability Order costs succeeds

Hiya
thank you for your reply, it wont let me its says something about waiting for my account to be activated?
Lavender2013

[Kati]

Re: Judicial Review of Haringey's £125 Liability Order costs succeeds

Hiya
thank you for your reply, it wont let me its says something about waiting for my account to be activated?
Lavender2013

aaah ... you might need to make more posts before your PM facility gets activated :sorry
You could email me instead (kati@legalbeagles.info) with your username as the subject?
K xx

[outlawlgo]

Re: Judicial Review of Haringey's £125 Liability Order costs succeeds

For anyone following the Rev's pursuit of Haringey's iffy court costs there's an update and recap of events.


Council Tax Rev Paul Nicolson lost In High Court he takes Grant Thornton, Magistrates & Council to the Appeal Court

EDIT:

The judgment with the Reverend's comments:

[2016] EWHC 710 (Admin)