The link did not work because of the way CAG interferes with the code not because of my error.

How many bailiff companies do you have shares in?

The Spectator covered the subject of police corruption a couple of months ago. (The shocking truth about police corruption in Britain) http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9461322/the-shocking-truth-about-police-corruption-in-britain/

You would expect Edwardo Milibando and the Labour Campaign would not miss out on the opportunity to capitalise on the obvious corruption demonstrated by the Tory Communities and Local Government Secretary of State for selfishly influencing laws that affect the whole Country with justification being because he was personally hit with a bill to pay because of a jobsworth parking attendant. Perhaps the reason he would reserve judgement might be because he was mindful of the fact that a Labour MP who raised concerns in the House of Commons in 2007 about the questionable fairness of the apparent government sanctioned theft by private bailiffs was motivated because of his own personal interests. Those being because his daughter had been sca sca hamed by an opportunist bailiff who had added several £hundreds unlawfully to a parking ticket. http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2007-03-27d.1471.0

In the context, ‘limited’ means a capped amount whereas 'just' infers that the amount may be insignificant.

I take that to have been a typing error and should have been; their exposure to fees is limited to £75, with the 'just' omitted? If I had the misfortune of having an EA on my back I would certainly not even pay them the £75 let alone anything else that followed.

It's a valid point. A judge would probably want to know why the Magistrates didn't smell a rat when both authorities claimed identical costs for both summons and liability order, but now Haringey asks for (and is awarded) £55 more summons than Enfield. Figures would need supporting though so can these statistics be obtained?

dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2657599/Nearly-half-million-iPlayer-users-avoid-paying-licence-fee-Escape-145-50-charge-declaring-not-television-set-live-shows

There is another application for a case stated with grounds similarly tabled (or at least on a similar theme) as the reverends. The problem extends far beyond local authorities' thieving, but to the Government (MoJ) itself. No deed to explain further as it's explained in this FoI request (and links) that we have a criminal justice system that is just that, "a criminal system of justice". whatdotheyknow.....Humber & South Yorkshire Local Justice Area lies and obstruction....

Would it be an option (if both parties willing) to draw up a consent order agreeing that there be no order as to costs?

I must have missed something.....

In the link, Baroness Hanham states: This is quoted from the Lords on 24 July 2012 in a debate about the Local Government Finance Bill. But in a wider context.... In relation to reasonable costs being capped at £70 and the statement that magistrates do not just wipe them through, does anyone know what Baroness Hanham was talking about?

That's a good point and one I've wondered about in regards how things stand with these fees. But thinking about it, wouldn't SI 1996/1880 reinforce the argument that any payment made direct to the council could not be apportioned to the contractor, as they have not collected any money. Such an arrangement could only be enforced if there was no possible way other than paying the contractor or the local authority refused payment. We know councils systematically refuse payment in these circumstances, but isn't it common knowledge there are ways around this?

The regulation specifically dealing with the priority of payments in circumstances where less than the total amount due is paid is 52(4) of the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992: Relationship between remedies The way I see it is the bailiff firm has a problem here, because the regulation above can only apply where the council's enforcement is in-house. The regulation categorically expresses the action in terms of "any sum recovered". Clearly the bailiff firm has not recovered anything if the payment has been made voluntarily to the council. The council clearly has no claim to the fees, because no visits have been made by council employees in respect of the debt. To add to this, it would probably be unlawful if the council forwarded any monies to the bailiff firm, paid by the debtor in respect of their Council Tax liability.

Section 64 Magistrates' Court Act 1980 How a council should go about calculation the costs applied for isn't clearly set out, the basic cost of a summons and liability order I think is around £10-20. So it would all depend on what else is being included such as the council's court officer's time, but I imagine that most costs would be covered by general administration budget. Something makes me think there must be some other legislation governing costs in Council Tax liability order applications, or the procedure is flawed. This is taken from a debt recovery policy (Brent Borough Council) and states the following: " Summons costs are applied for when the Complaint is laid and the costs are put on the account shortly after this....Summons costs for Non-Domestic Rates are £140 and for Council Tax £90 " " Liability Order costs for both council tax and non-domestic rates are £30.00. They are incurred when a Liability Order is granted. These costs can be asked for at Court even where the remaining balance outstanding relates to costs only." Section 64 of the Magistrates' Court Act 1980 clearly states that "on the hearing of a complaint, a magistrates’ court shall have power in its discretion to make such order as to costs......" In Brent Council's case, it applies for summons costs when the Complaint is laid. This is at least 14 days (according to Council Tax Regulations) before "the hearing". On the face of it, this is not in accordance with section 64(1)(a) of the Magistrates Court Act. On the other hand, the liability order costs are applied for "on the hearing of a complaint" and presumably in accordance with section 64(1)(a). Another observation is many local authorities load all costs to the summons and therefore do not ask for further costs at the liability order hearing. Consequently all court costs in these cases are charged to the debtor completely independent of the Magistrates' court. What would be interesting to know is, if at a liability order hearing, Magistrates used their discretion not to award costs, how would this work when summons costs have been incurred independently of the court?