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

[outlawlgo]

EDWARD WILLIAMS - and - EAST NORTHAMPTONSHIRE DISTRICT COUNCIL
[2016] EWHC 470 (Admin)

[outlawlgo]

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

From what I remember, the article used the number of Self Assessment penalties as a figure of comparison with the number of liability orders (and probably the penalty amount). The main theme however was the High Court case.

[Adamna]

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

Have asked on the facebook preview. The 870,000 and £100 penalty figures seems to relate to late Self Assessment tax returns in 2016.

[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

The article linked to in the above has completely vanished. The web-page has for some reason, on the browser tab, the Spanish for 'page not found' (no se encontró la página).

Other sites where the article has been posted have previews only (twitter, facebook). The article began as follows:

'Some 870 000 individual taxpayers have each received a £100 penalty for late filing of....'

Anyone have the expertise to be able to find the article (cache content for example) or possibly saved a copy off-line?

[outlawlgo]

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

Another LGO report (Waltham Forest Borough Council) states at paragraph 5:

"A liability order is a court order confirming the person must pay the council tax and costs. Costs are incurred as soon as the Council issues the summons.

[outlawlgo]

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

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

I would agree that the regulations provide that costs can become due before the hearing and be paid before the case is brought before the court. However, what this effectively facilitates is an out of court settlement.

The regulations do not allow for the debtor's council tax account to be increased by an amount deemed by the council to be equal to the costs reasonably incurred, only that the debtor is given the opportunity to pay or tender to the authority an amount (as the high court judgment).

Additionally, it seems that the reason regulations provide for a sum of costs to be agreed as an out of court settlement is because the statutory instrument is ultra vires the enabling Act:

Statutory Instrument is ultra vires? – Regulation 34 of Council Tax Regulations

[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

[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)

[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.

[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

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

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

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

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

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