Incredible view of High Court judge in £75 Council Tax costs

[Adamna]

Re: Incredible view of High Court judge in £75 Council Tax costs

Totally agree. Also, there can be no question as to whether ANY payment process could be included. It is not part of the enforcement process, it is part of the settlement process. Neither is it part of the costs reasonably incurred in obtaining a summons or a liability order. End of.

[outlawlgo]

Re: Incredible view of High Court judge in £75 Council Tax costs

Totally agree. Also, there can be no question as to whether ANY payment process could be included. It is not part of the enforcement process, it is part of the settlement process. Neither is it part of the costs reasonably incurred in obtaining a summons or a liability order. End of.

You wonder why such observations are missed by the court, especially when the QC, sitting as judge, has these glowing references:

“An exceptional barrister”...“has dealt with some fantastically difficult stuff in his time”...“superb, incredibly commercial and very client-friendly”...“a super brain who thinks of arguments the other side could make but which haven't occurred to them. He is always two or three steps ahead of his opposite number.”
Chambers and Partners 2013

"The embodiment of pure brainpower," "spots arguments the other side doesn't; he is very thorough, and his quiet, confident and assured style belies his tenacity and steely determination."
Chambers and Partners 2011

[charitynjw]

Re: Incredible view of High Court judge in £75 Council Tax costs

You wonder why such observations are missed by the court, especially when the QC, sitting as judge, has these glowing references:

“An exceptional barrister”...“has dealt with some fantastically difficult stuff in his time”...“superb, incredibly commercial and very client-friendly”...“a super brain who thinks of arguments the other side could make but which haven't occurred to them. He is always two or three steps ahead of his opposite number.”
Chambers and Partners 2013

"The embodiment of pure brainpower," "spots arguments the other side doesn't; he is very thorough, and his quiet, confident and assured style belies his tenacity and steely determination."
Chambers and Partners 2011

That must have cost him!
(Naturally I'm referring here to the time & dedication spent in the pursuit of justice! :whistle

[Adamna]

Re: Incredible view of High Court judge in £75 Council Tax costs

You wonder why such observations are missed by the court, especially when the QC, sitting as judge, has these glowing references:

This one is interesting
""Very thorough and conscientious, he shows great attention to detail"..."A go-to silk with a calm and reassuring manner, who is very commercial in his advice."
If he has the capability to be thorough and concientious he abandoned it, most likely in some 'commercial' interest or other.....
Or maybe the case was poorly argued. Even so, a LIP should be assisted not walked over.

[outlawlgo]

Re: Incredible view of High Court judge in £75 Council Tax costs

[2016] EWHC 470 (Admin)

.....Just looking at the first question regarding the summons and whether the costs should be stated as a fixed amount before the case is heard. One significant omission in my mind here is that the court has not inquired into whether the council has already applied the costs to the Appellant's account. The fact that the costs are applied by the time the summons is served makes paragraph 32 questionable, and the representations of the council before hand:

32. I accept that the order for costs did not fall to be made until after the point in time when the basis for the liability order had itself been established but that is no reason for not telling the recipient in advance what minimum claim for costs would be pursued by the Respondent if such a liability order were subsequently to be made....

Paragraphs 75 - 82, Annex A of the attached provides pretty conclusive evidence that the council misled the judge and the judge allowed himself to be.

[Adamna]

Re: Incredible view of High Court judge in £75 Council Tax costs

I read somewhere (can't recall where, I've read too much recently) that the (reasonable) forewarning of potential costs is merely in order that both parties may agree a settlement without the necessity for a court hearing, which is exactly what councils are doing - trying to get people to settle 'out of court'. However, this needs to be by agreement, not imposed onto an existing account before the summons is even received.
In my experience it's not irrevocable, but only because I am obstreporous, and probably know more than most who just accept it as a done deal (which is certainly the impression given).
Sometimes the council do remove the summons costs voluntarily as a sweetener to get swift payment (under duress), and people think they should be grateful, never questioning the sum or legality.

[outlawlgo]

Re: Incredible view of High Court judge in £75 Council Tax costs

Article written with what can be detected some sympathy to litigants in person for the unfairness of the system which seems to penalise anyone daring to cut out the expense of appointing a legal representative.

Taxpayers hit with unjustifiable costs

[Adamna]

Re: Incredible view of High Court judge in £75 Council Tax costs

The costs involved in challenging a relatively small sum (to the individual) are out of all proportion, and a bar to justice. Meanwhile councils all over the country are on a ‘nice little earner’ it’s a legal and moral disgrace. The VTE idea is worth considering, but would it set the same legal precedents as, for example, Nicolson did?

[outlawlgo]

Re: Incredible view of High Court judge in £75 Council Tax costs

The costs involved in challenging a relatively small sum (to the individual) are out of all proportion, and a bar to justice. Meanwhile councils all over the country are on a ‘nice little earner’ it’s a legal and moral disgrace. The VTE idea is worth considering, but would it set the same legal precedents as, for example, Nicolson did?

Though not having looked through it yet, the procedure seems pretty comprehensively set out here: "Valuation Tribunal Service"

I suppose the advantage will be that presumably appellants don't have to rely on Magistrates' courts (which seem to play by their own rules) to progress the appeal as in a case stated to the high court.

[Adamna]

Re: Incredible view of High Court judge in £75 Council Tax costs

It's not listed as one of the 'appeal types', so yes, unchartered territory, and the same issues with ending up in the high court. Still, could be very worth a try as essentially you are challenging the very decision makers that screwed up in the magistrates' court, possibly even the very same judge, as in my case. Like that was going to be a fair hearing.

[outlawlgo]

Re: Incredible view of High Court judge in £75 Council Tax costs

There was an error material in the judgment

Paragraph 32 demonstrates:

32. I accept that the order for costs did not fall to be made until after the point in time when the basis for the liability order had itself been established but that is no reason for not telling the recipient in advance what minimum claim for costs would be pursued by the Respondent if such a liability order were subsequently to be made.....

It has been confirmed, as is customary with all billing authorities, that East Northamptonshire District Council, applies summons costs to the debtor's account on issuing a summons.

[Adamna]

Re: Incredible view of High Court judge in £75 Council Tax costs

Would the Appellant have the appetite to re-visit, I wonder?

[outlawlgo]

Re: Incredible view of High Court judge in £75 Council Tax costs

Would the Appellant have the appetite to re-visit, I wonder?

Or have enough confidence in the system and spare cash that the judge might want to divert to his colleagues in the same line of business.

[outlawlgo]

Re: Incredible view of High Court judge in £75 Council Tax costs

The Local Government Ombudsman's opinion differs to the High Court's judgment in this case (regarding when the Council Taxpayer incurs summons costs).

The High Court determined that the summons document should only advise the debtor of the amount that will be claimed in respect of issuing the summons if and when the case is brought to court, i.e., the costs are not incurred as soon as the Council issues the summons.

However, there are at least two formal decisions in which the Ombudsman has stated that the court costs in relation to a Council Tax summons are incurred as soon as the Council issues/serves the summons.

Paragraphs 5 and 10 of the ombudsman's report dated 13 April 2017 concerning Bradford Council, and paragraphs 5 and 12 of a another dated 15 May 2017 concerning Trafford Council.

Bradford Council (16 019 355)

Trafford Council (17 001 018)

Note: In reality the costs are added to the taxpayer's account at the point when the council issues the summons (against the high court judgment but in accordance with the Local Government Ombudsman's opinion)

[lgfa92]

Re: Incredible view of High Court judge in £75 Council Tax costs

The Local Government Ombudsman's opinion differs to the High Court's judgment in this case (regarding when the Council Taxpayer incurs summons costs).

The High Court determined that the summons document should only advise the debtor of the amount that will be claimed in respect of issuing the summons if and when the case is brought to court, i.e., the costs are not incurred as soon as the Council issues the summons.

However, there are at least two formal decisions in which the Ombudsman has stated that the court costs in relation to a Council Tax summons are incurred as soon as the Council issues/serves the summons.

Paragraphs 5 and 10 of the ombudsman's report dated 13 April 2017 concerning Bradford Council, and paragraphs 5 and 12 of a another dated 15 May 2017 concerning Trafford Council.

Bradford Council (16 019 355)

Trafford Council (17 001 018)

Note: In reality the costs are added to the taxpayer's account at the point when the council issues the summons (against the high court judgment but in accordance with the Local Government Ombudsman's opinion)

Not read the High Court decision as yet but the LGO would be supported by Regulation 34(5) which states that;

(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.

(my emphasis)

The regulations were certainly drafted with the intent that costs can become due before the hearing and can be paid before the hearing.

Craig