Tottenham Magistrates' Court are showing how desperate they are by preventing the Reverend Paul Nicolson's appeal from getting the attention of the High Court.

Tottenham Justices are obstructing proceedings, and so the Reverend is now having to make a further appeal (Judicial Review) for mandatory order in the hope of forcing the Magistrates to "state a case". They are refusing to do this without such coercion for some reason.

how on earth can they justify £213 in costs that's way over the top in my opinion

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?416893-Rundles-bailiff-clamped-my-car-for-outstaanding-CTAX-FEES-ONLY-help/page2

Council Tax arrears £76

Court Fees(Summon and Liability) £213

An update on the Reverend's battle to get his case into the High Court. Judicial Review filed march 4 at High Court

There's more to why the authorities are pulling out all the stops to prevent the case being heard by a proper court. This "(FOI) response", and what goes before, shows Haringey Borough Council's desperation.

"Overheads".

An update on the Reverend's battle to get his case into the High Court. Judicial Review filed march 4 at High Court

 

There's more to why the authorities are pulling out all the stops to prevent the case being heard by a proper court. This "(FOI) response", and what goes before, shows Haringey Borough Council's desperation.

.

.

Thank you outlawla for updating this very important thread. As everyone on this forum will be aware you have undertaken extensive work on this subject (and Head H fees) and you deserve great credit. Well done to you.

I have provided a lot of background papers to the Reverend and I am sure that we all wish him good luck with his Judicial Review. As you will personally know...these applications are difficult to pursue but this particular one is of huge public interest.

I can only agree and concur with tomtubby on this

Is there not an argument to be made re "dwelling" ?

Is there not an argument to be made re "dwelling" ?

There probably is but the authorities, the council and HMCS are trying to quietly bury this one. If they get really silly they may apply to the Court of Protection to declare the Reverend Gentleman Non Compus Mentus, and put him under the protection of the secret system, and take the money that way.

They do this with elderly homeowners to get them into care homes against their will, then jail the daughter for speaking out.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/10088740/Woman-jailed-by-secret-court-for-taking-father-out-of-care-home-talks-for-first-time-of-her-ordeal.html

Sorry to butt in, but I read the thread and I just want to say that this guy Rev Nicolson is my new personal hero. I've been hit with council tax arrears of £90 because I'm on full benefit but became liable due to new rules. I couldn't pay and now after the court summons it stands at £220 with Haringey Council and despite me trying to negotiate a realistic repayment plan (IE what is realistic when you have NOTHING?) I've heard nothing back, and I'm waiting to get a letter saying it's been passed to bailiffs and the fees now stand at £500+. So anything I can do to support this brave man please let me know - I'd sincerely rather pay my benefit attachment to him to help fight his legal fees.

Today's post on the 'Taxpayers Against Poverty' website:

High Court Agrees that I have a point about court costs for council tax liability orders which "ought in principle to be heard"

It appears Haringey Borough Council have submitted to the Magistrates' court a calculation justifying their £125 summons costs, but reveals that the council included £1.08 million of this as being overheads for running the council tax department.

Also revealed in cabinet documents is that Haringey has admitted to setting 'costs' at the most they can get away with, further admitting this is done as a means of deterring taxpayers of non-or late payment which is obviously quite unlawful.

It may throw a spanner in the council Tax enforcement gravy train with any luck

There are some concerns surrounding Haringey's costs, over and above whether they are deemed excessive. A judge might find it an important consideration that the Council has front loaded all the costs to issuing a summons, where they were once considered split between the summons and additional costs imposed on a Liability Order being granted by the court.

Records show that in 2006/07 only two thirds of its total expenditure was considered to be incurred by Haringey on issuing the summons with an additional third added only if the householder failed to settle the outstanding Council Tax before the court hearing.

A judge alerted to this would no doubt want to know why in 2008/09 all the expenditure was incurred on issuing the summons and what changes in administration brought about this. He'd probably put 2 and 2 together and realise that the balance of costs had nothing to do with it, rather the council realised that it could make more money this way.

Could be worth keeping an eye out to see what evasive answers Haringey will come back with to this...

No doubt someone will be/will have alerted the Judge..........................

No doubt someone will be/will have alerted the Judge..........................

To allow the council to carry on fleecing, after all they will use the Floodgates argument as in find against the council and the whole Kangaroo system will collapse.

Floodgates ? let them.

Outlawa,

A most interesting FOI request to Haringay and well done to the person who made the request !!!

If councils up and down the country have applied ways of making money and there is a threat to unwind this, given the state of funding they receive from central government, I should imagine that the whole system will be working to stop any court finding against any council. I am not convinced that UK Judges are really independent of government and vested interests. I am sure that pressure is put on them to use complicated legal procedural reasons to refuse any application made to them. This is one of the reasons some UK politicians want the UK to leave the European Court of Human Rights. They don't like having independent Judges they can't exercise control over.

The Reverend has made an incredible stand in his fight to protect vulnerable debtors and winning the permission of the High Court to take his case to Judicial Review is a major achievement but as the Reverend himself has stated on his BLOG the Judge is of the opinion that he may well be taking the incorrect route and this is why it is important to also read the Judgment from the High Court (which can be found in the link below).

http://www.taxpayersagainstpoverty.org.uk/high-court-agrees-that-i-have-a-point-about-court-costs-for-council-tax-liability-orders-which-ought-in-principle-to-be-heard/

The Reverend's application for Judicial Review is not only in relation to the summons (and Liability Order) costs but concerns the absence of an actual 'stamped and sealed' 'Liability Order' and the very complicated matter of the summons costs etc on debtors who are subject to council tax bills because of the changes to welfare benefits (this last part being very complicated indeed).

In relation to the 'summons costs etc' the Reverend shares my view that it is likely that the Government will 'fast track' an amendment to the council tax regulations to mirror the Council Tax and Non-Domestic Rating (amendment) (Wales) Regulations 2011 S.I 2011/528 which imposed a total 'cap'of £70 to cover the summons AND Liability Order costs in Wales.

I spoke at length to him last night about his case and over this weekend I will be providing him with copies of vitally important documents. With regards to the 'summons costs' etc it is extremely important to go back to 1996 to understand WHY the costs had been agreed and by whom. Thankfully I have a file on this which will be going to the Reverend over the weekend.

On the matter of the Magistrates Court 'failure to issue a Liability Order' unfortunately the Reverend is incorrect about this but again, the correct information will be provided and this will also correct his misunderstanding the the LO requires a personal signature (it does not).

With the new bailiff regulations having imposed a change to the council tax regulations that the Local Authority no longer have to provide a '14 day' letter to the debtor to advise that a Liability Order has been obtained it is even more important to ensure that a "Liability Order" is provided to the debtor.

PS: From the information that I have it is CLEAR that a Liability Order is supposed to be provided to the debtor.

You have to consider the background of most judges and by this I dont mean what school or ubiversity but how they became judges. They are lawyers who are approached and asked if they will consider being a judge and if they agree they are sent on courses and eventually become judges. they receive a stipend that is a fraction of what any decent lawyer would earn so they are not always at the top of their game, so to speak as the best will say no to the offer. Then you have to consider their specialisation before becoming judges and that is commonly commercial law, not criminal law or this type of civil litigation. This means that they will have no prior experience of the particular field they have been asked to make judgement upon and therefore, unless there is a nice precedent to rely upon knowingly have to make a decision that can be challenged by those with the most money. If they make too many "mistakes" then they are appraised by a more senior judge and eventually the government minister so there is the possibility that they will have an eye on the future if they have to make a decision that has no case law to fall back on that could cost them their career. How do you think it will go then?

If a particular fee charged by an HCEO is challenged and it goes all the way, he has to go before a costs judge at a detailed assessment. He will have to show under what law the fees are charged and how the fee is calculated.

If they are not justifiable then they will be reduced to what the Judge thinks is fair based upon the information provided. The new regulations provide similar process for bailiffs (enforcement agents) enforcing Local Authority debts.

Fair play to the Reverend, the fee charged by the Council surely needs to be justified in a similar manner that the people enforcing the debt have to do.

I will watch this with interest.

If you have to justify your costs HCEOs, then it is only fair that a LA must do likewise.

If you have to justify your costs HCEOs, then it is only fair that a LA must do likewise.

Couldn't agree more.

Eric's brother.

A good post and I agree with you 100%.

As to how I think that the case will go. Very difficult to know given that the Reverend has included lots of different arguments. On the matter of the actual 'issuing of a Liability Order, this should be an easy one to win (and I really do hope so).

On the matter of an order regarding the 'summons cost', I personally believe that this could prove troublesome given that any Judge would not want to make an order that could impact on 'cash strapped' local authorities and could lead to them being subject to legal claims going back years. This could be difficult and this is why my personal opinion is that the government may well be forced to fast track an amendment along the same lines as that in Wales where a 'cap' of £70 is imposed.

....This could be difficult and this is why my personal opinion is that the government may well be forced to fast track an amendment along the same lines as that in Wales where a 'cap' of £70 is imposed.

The Welsh amendment (cap on costs) provides a key argument against Haringey loading all its £125 charge to the summons. The cap (in this instance), and the fact that it only applies to Welsh councils is of no consequence as it is the amendment, and the added emphasis given to the 1992 Council Tax Regulations, that is of relevance to Haringey front loading all its costs.

Particular clarity of the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 is given by the Explanatory Memorandum at paragraphs 4.2 and 4.3 (emphasis added):

4.2. When council tax payers and non-domestic rates payers fail to make their payments as scheduled in their demand notices, they will receive reminder notices, second reminder notices and final notices. Should they still fail to pay the amount outstanding or come to an agreement with the local authority, a summons may be issued for their appearance at the Magistrates Court. The issue of a summons adds a cost to the debtor’s account.

 

4.3. If the debtor is unable to pay the balance in full prior to the court hearing date they are required to attend court. The Council will request that the Magistrates’ Court grant a liability order for the debt in question. This procedure will incur a further cost for the debtor.

It is clear from a previous post (#37) that Haringey has taken advantage over a number of costs reviews to gradually move the costs described at paragraph 4.3 above to those described at paragraph 4.2, thus generating more income.

Regulation 3 of the 2011 Welsh amendment itself (S.I 2011/528 (W.73)) leaves no doubt that parliament meant for there to be a lesser sum of costs payable on the issue of the summons, than the total costs of obtaining the order (emphasis added):

3. (1) The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 are amended as follows.

 

(2) In regulation 34 (application for liability order)—

(a) in paragraph (7)(b), after “the order” insert “(which costs,

including those of instituting the application under paragraph (2)

, are not to exceed the prescribed amount of £70)”;

 

(b) ...."

If councils up and down the country have applied ways of making money and there is a threat to unwind this, given the state of funding they receive from central government, I should imagine that the whole system will be working to stop any court finding against any council. I am not convinced that UK Judges are really independent of government and vested interests. I am sure that pressure is put on them to use complicated legal procedural reasons to refuse any application made to them. This is one of the reasons some UK politicians want the UK to leave the European Court of Human Rights. They don't like having independent Judges they can't exercise control over.

Wow. At last someone else that recognises that the uk courts and judges at not independent. As an aside, most judges if they had normal jobs would be dismissed for lacking skill and/or doing their jobs properly. How many cases, thousands actually, are decided one way by the magistrate, the other entire opposite by a judge, totally opposite again by the appeal court, and then opposite again by the supreme court. Whoever has decided incorrectly should lose their jobs.. Maybe then they would start taking JUSTICE seriously.