I have a question or two about council tax liability order applications; in particular with regards how costs are agreed, for example with the Magistrates' court.

Background info

First off, this is the letter North East Lincolnshire council sent Grimsby Magistrates' court last year when it decided it wanted to increase the revenue generated from council tax liability order applications by changing the composition of the summons/liability order fees.

It increased the overall cost by 23% as well as front loading all the charge to the summons fee (effectively a 120% hike).

Council's letter notifying the court it was increasing costs

Simply notifying the court of its intentions is clearly not something councils should be doing regarding how much (if any) costs are awarded to them.

Also, how is it possible for councils to specify on the summons document a predetermined amount for either the summons or liability orders which will be imposed on the taxpayer?

Magistrates would need to determine this at the council tax liability order hearing. These costs would vary from one hearing to another because a key factor in determining the costs incurred by the council would be the number processed in the rubber stamping exercise of the bulk hearing.

Does anyone have further details about how the level of costs imposed on council taxpayers in respect of liability order applications are agreed and authorised by the Magistrates' court? Any links to legislation?

Also any opinions of the legitimacy of councils specifying the amount of costs imposed on the actual summons document when a summons is only a means of inviting the defendant to court to answer the complaint?

Thanks for any information.

Not sure if this is what your after, here's a link to the regulations regarding summons and costs

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1992/613/regulation/34/made

doesn't seem to mention how its set.

Not sure if this is what your after, here's a link to the regulations regarding summons and costs

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1992/613/regulation/34/made

doesn't seem to mention how its set.

Thanks!

Regulation 34 raises the question of how it can be possible for a debtor to stop the recovery process going to the liability order stage by settling outstanding council tax plus the costs imposed for the summons.

i.e

At any normal Magistrates' court hearing it would be Magistrates that determine the level of costs which would need to be awarded at the actual hearing.

To implement Regulation 34(5) above, the costs would need to be assumed as no court hearing has taken place at that stage.

Having read around a bit I found some advice but couldn't find the specific regulations.

The council it would seem to need to notify the justices clerk of the "standard" costs it intends to charge for that year and the clerk needs to raise any objections. If at summons stage the council tax has been paid in full but the cost remain unpaid, the court can still issue a Liability Order for the original costs but not award any additional costs. The defendant can challenge the costs awarded at the Liability Hearing and equally the council can ask for the costs to be increased if it has incurred additional work e.g. hired legal consultants. So in effect the costs are still at the Magistrates discretion.

Having read around a bit I found some advice but couldn't find the specific regulations.

 

The council it would seem to need to notify the justices clerk of the "standard" costs it intends to charge for that year and the clerk needs to raise any objections. If at summons stage the council tax has been paid in full but the cost remain unpaid, the court can still issue a Liability Order for the original costs but not award any additional costs. The defendant can challenge the costs awarded at the Liability Hearing and equally the council can ask for the costs to be increased if it has incurred additional work e.g. hired legal consultants. So in effect the costs are still at the Magistrates discretion.

The council will always run the expected costs past the court in advance - this stops the court deciding at a hearing that they don't think the costs are appropriate.

When a summons is issued any applied costs are treated exactly the same as any council tax shown on the summons and a Liability Order can be granted against just the costs. Costs can be applied for the Liability Order granting irrespective of whether its for summons costs/council tax or a combination.

The Council Tax Practice Note Number 9 Page 8, item 3.3 says:

It seems the rules are being bent to cater for the mass processing of these council tax liability orders. It must be as a result of the government's desire to automate, as far as possible, the judicial process.

The summons is a means of informing the defendant of the date, time and venue of the court hearing and should not include information advising what costs the defendant may pay to avoid the order being granted.

A predetermined amount of costs cannot be known and therefore not, with any credibility, be agreed by the Magistrates' court in advance. The letter detailed in my initial post is evidence that Magistrates' courts give a free rein to councils to determine their own level of costs. It also seems unlikely that authorities ever have to justify their claims.

Interestingly, in the same document linked to above, also on page 8, item 3.18 states:

Costs imposed on residents can never be determined in advance because a higher number than that anticipated processed through the applications would mean that each defendant would have paid above the amount the council reasonably incurred.