.....2011-12 calculation

 

Here they calculate the hourly rate at £13.94 (including 25% employment cost) then justify doubling that figure to £27.88 because they consider the cost of employing staff to cover for the non-recovery work while staff are dealing with recovery work to be fair game, cell (H11)...

Just totted up all the costs (£646,711.45) which have been included twice relating to grade 5 hourly rate (brown coloured cells). This needs adjusting (halving) to £323,355.73.

We can therefore remove £0.323+ million for that little bit of creativity and that's without looking into the detail.

outlawla

I think that you will find that there are a LOT more examples of 'creative accounting' in these documents (in particular in the 2014/5 one).

I am staggered. More hopefully tomorrow.

outlawla

 

I think that you will find that there are a LOT more examples of 'creative accounting' in these documents (in particular in the 2014/5 one).

 

I am staggered. More hopefully tomorrow.

Had a look at the most current calculation. As previously they include pay grade 5 hourly rate "TWICE", and astonishingly (this might be what you noticed) have estimated summonses, reminders and final notices using arithmetic manipulation that can only be describe as ***** inventive.

This is detailed on the second page of the spreadsheet (Leicester Estimations) where the figures 29,200 for the estimated summonses and 97,345 for the notices etc., were conjured up.

outlawla

We did indeed pick up the same 'errors'. Our auditor friend stated that the 'starting point' for an 'accurate' calculation has to be based upon the NUMBER OF STAFF actually employed in the recovery department. Neither of us have had any time really to look at the 2014/15 calculations in detail but from the brief look it would seem that in the 'Total Costs' figure include a sum of £135,837.00 which is the YEARLY salaries of 5 'recovery staff dealing with all aspects of general recovery'.

In ADDITIONAL to this the total costs also include £734,000 for staff costs (item 43) dealing with 'telephone contacts'. If we use the salary level outlined in Item 7 (cell D) of £27,167) this would be the YEARLY cost of an ADDITIONAL 25 members of staff.

There is worse:

Item 45 includes 'costs' of £746,027 for staff costs for 'correspondence work'. Again, if we use the same salary level outlined in Item 7 (£27,167) this would cover the YEARLY salaries of a FURTHER 27 members of staff.

Item 44 covers the staff costs for 'face to face contacts. This cost of £143,398 covers the YEARLY salaries for a FURTHER 5 members of staff.

Item 42 is already provided under Item 7.

Just taking the rough details as outlined above, the 'total costs' of £2,152,392 'appears' to cover the entire yearly salaries for at least 62 members of staff !!!

....Just taking the rough details as outlined above, the 'total costs' of £2,152,392 'appears' to cover the entire yearly salaries for at least 62 members of staff !!!

If 5 recovery staff is a reasonable estimate of the workforce needed to deal with all aspects of general recovery, you could say either 57 staff members (at the expense of the taxpayer) spend their whole working day doing nothing but updating their facebook pages, or, the surplus funds a number of obscene executive pensions.

I assume that on the whole this con could be multiplied up pro rata across virtually all counties in England and Wales?

Coughdrop;

100% correct !!

A link to a foi found today makes it clear why a certain Magistrates' court is abusing its power by stonewalling an application to state a case to the High Court with regards the court costs which are the subject of this thread.

Those court officials responsible for lying to the applicant are doubtlessly being pressured from high ranking civil servants or government ministers to ensure that a case like this is never brought before the High Court. This without any doubt brings H M Courts and Tribunal Service into disrepute; if the Nationals ever had the bottle to go with what is the wholesale corruption of the justice system or the BBC (or any of its competitors) allowed themselves to burst there way out of the protective bubble which indoctrinates them that there could never be anything amiss with the government's integrity, then a little more justice would be served.

A link to a foi found today makes it clear why a certain Magistrates' court is abusing its power by stonewalling an application to state a case to the High Court with regards the court costs which are the subject of this thread.

 

Those court officials responsible for lying to the applicant are doubtlessly being pressured from high ranking civil servants or government ministers to ensure that a case like this is never brought before the High Court. This without any doubt brings H M Courts and Tribunal Service into disrepute; if the Nationals ever had the bottle to go with what is the wholesale corruption of the justice system or the BBC (or any of its competitors) allowed themselves to burst there way out of the protective bubble which indoctrinates them that there could never be anything amiss with the government's integrity, then a little more justice would be served.

This illustrates that Justice and fairness is sacrificed wrongly on the altar ov revenue The Government should not interfere with or put pressure on the judicial system to condone illegal acts because it is a council breaking the law.

There is overwhelming evidence to support England introducing a CAP on the summons/Liability Order fee in the same way that Wales has done. Approximately 2 years ago the costs were made part of a statutory regulations and the CAP is £70.

The Reverend might find a copy of this useful to argue the point that the council should provide the Magistrates' court with a breakdown of costs it has incurred, for which the bench then has discretion on the amount it awards.

Recovery of Court Costs – Council Tax Liability Orders

Particular attention perhaps to paragraphs 12, 13 and 14 of the document. Also section 64 of the Magistrates Courts Act 1980.

EDIT:

There is a typo at paragraph 7.

Where it states "regulation 38" this should in fact be regulation 34.

I cannot download a copy. Can you send me another link and I will get it over to the Reverend this evening.

If your documents program opens 'docx' files this one should be ok:

Recovery of Court Costs.docx

The Reverend might find a copy of this useful to argue the point that the council should provide the Magistrates' court with a breakdown of costs it has incurred, for which the bench then has discretion on the amount it awards.

 

Recovery of Court Costs – Council Tax Liability Orders

 

Particular attention perhaps to paragraphs 12, 13 and 14 of the document. Also section 64 of the Magistrates Courts Act 1980.

 

 

EDIT:

 

There is a typo at paragraph 7.

 

Where it states "regulation 38" this should in fact be regulation 34.

Something to add a bit more weight from the Ministry of Justice:

subbing with interest

 

The Reverend might find a copy of this useful to argue the point that the council should provide the Magistrates' court with a breakdown of costs it has incurred, for which the bench then has discretion on the amount it awards.

.

outlawla.

I have sent a lot of your information to Paul in the last few days and his comment below if from an email that I received from him a few moments ago:

"Very many thanks for all this. I will read, mark, learn and inwardly digest" !!

.

outlawla.

 

I have sent a lot of your information to Paul in the last few days and his comment below if from an email that I received from him a few moments ago:

 

"Very many thanks for all this. I will read, mark, learn and inwardly digest" !!

The Reverend is welcome to any (hopefully relevant) information I have. Since HMCTS has blocked an attempt to bring a case before the High Court (Application 22 November 2012) there has been a fair amount of time for additional material to surface which will reinforce the case. Some of that happens to be directly connected with Haringey.

During the 20 or so months the Magistrates' Court has been obstructing the case coming before the High Court by stonewalling and ultimately lying, it has shown the justice system to be wholly dysfunctional; having lost sight of its role which is definitely not aiding and abetting mafia councils to get away with circumventing the law.

The relevant procedure rules have been breached. Even a promise to deliver the case (after instituting Judicial Review proceedings for mandatory order) was B.S.

The next step must have to be via the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO) to make a complaint about the Magistrate who is blocking this application. The irony is though that the website directs you to write to the Secretary of the relevant Advisory Committee who in this case is the very Clerk to the Justices who has committed in writing to lying to me on one occasion and on most others completely ignoring correspondence.

Outlawa this gets worse and worse, it looks like there is no justice regarding administration of council tax. There are as you indicate obvious reasons why any inquiry is being crippled. Let's hope the judge in the Reverend's case sees snse and has a right pop at these magistrates and councils for their blatant criminal actions, all in the name of Revenue Generation.

Presumably as it is a debtor to the State, they consider like Common Purpose they can Lead beyond Authority and make it up as they go along; the end justifies the means

The Reverend is welcome to any (hopefully relevant) information I have. Since HMCTS has blocked an attempt to bring a case before the High Court (Application 22 November 2012) there has been a fair amount of time for additional material to surface which will reinforce the case. Some of that happens to be directly connected with Haringey.

 

During the 20 or so months the Magistrates' Court has been obstructing the case coming before the High Court by stonewalling and ultimately lying, it has shown the justice system to be wholly dysfunctional; having lost sight of its role which is definitely not aiding and abetting mafia councils to get away with circumventing the law.

 

The relevant procedure rules have been breached. Even a promise to deliver the case (after instituting Judicial Review proceedings for mandatory order) was B.S.

 

The next step must have to be via the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO) to make a complaint about the Magistrate who is blocking this application. The irony is though that the website directs you to write to the Secretary of the relevant Advisory Committee who in this case is the very Clerk to the Justices who has committed in writing to lying to me on one occasion and on most others completely ignoring correspondence.

If you have proof of this lying, which I am sure you do, maybe time to lay complaint with police for misconduct in public office?

If you have proof of this lying, which I am sure you do, maybe time to lay complaint with police for misconduct in public office?

An option to consider, but experience tells me that the police pick and choose which crimes they investigate and my gut feeling is they wouldn't touch this.

All correspondednce is recorded by the way.

The Guardian – Council Tax: a chaotic way to impoverish the already poor

As a result, four out of 10 low income Londoners affected by the abolition of council tax benefit (118,000) were last year sent a court summons as a result of being unable to pay all or some of the new charges. Of these 90,488 had a liability order issued against them. Of those summonsed in 2013-14, half were still in arrears at the end of the financial year.

 

The cost of issuing a summons can be charged to the debtor if a liability order is awarded. The charge to the magistrates court for this is £3, says the report. However, council charges ranged between £70 (Enfield) and £125 (Haringey) piling the pressure on the already poor. Some councils do not charge costs at all, and others do not charge if the debtor agrees a repayment plan.

Nice find Outlawla, how the hell adding more charges help poor prople pay debt is an obnoxious concept with no place in the 21st Century , the whole of Enforcement is an absurdity, as by adding charges therefore more debt to debt somehow makes it mofe repayable? Bunch of greedy Enforcement Companies and vested interests would lose a nice little earner if it was abolished no doubt.

It is possible that Enforcement and the way the charges and interest sometimes are added makes it non compliant with Islam, so maybe the Sharia Patrol will chase the bailiffs out of Tower Hamlets.

Anyway quoted from the article to illustrate the absurdity, now look at that IDS and Lord Freud

"A council tax support-claiming household living in a Band D property in Lambeth would have an annual bill of £197. If they failed to pay and were court summonsed, issued with a liability order and charged costs, £127 would be added to this debt. Following the implementation of new bailiff regulations in April 2014, a minimum of £75 would then be charged by the bailiffs for 'compliance', potentially followed by a further £235 when they first attend the household's property. The net result would lead to an already unmanageable debt of £197 skyrocketing to £634"

Newham Borough Council's response today needs the attention of the authorities:

The Serious Fraud Office, Department of Communities and Local Government, Local Government Ombudsman, Ministry of Justice, Information Commissioner, and the Nationals need to seriously think about taking their heads out of the sand.

Newham's response

Further to your email dated 6th July we enclose the letter to the Magistrates Court dated 14th January 2004.

 

Key officer decisions in connection with the other decisions is exempt under Section 36 of the Act.

 

Under the Freedom of Information Act we have the right to refuse a request for information held if an exemption applies. We believe in this case Section 36 applies, which provides for exemption where disclosure would be prejudicial to the effective conduct of public affairs.

 

Section 36 relates .......

Note: One of the other "Key Officer Decisions" which is exempt under Section 36 of the Act, is the 27th May 2010 report which we already have.

Wow Outlawla that report on the 27th May 2010 is dynamite. Obviously if Councils can swap costs back and forth it makes a mockery of anything they may say as to the

accuracy/veracity of their figures. The front loading aspect is disgraceful too.

outlawla,

Absolute stunning documents and ones that deserve investigating. I am due to call the Reverend later today and I have some suggestions for him.

There can be little doubt that these 'costs' need to be contained in Statutory regulations in the same way that they are in Wales and the DCLG need to get this mess sorted quickly. With Parliament now in recess nothing will even be looked at until October and there will be no time to get anything on the Statute books until after well after the election next year.

On a different note entirely (although still concerning 'costs') yesterday we were given further details of significant changes that are due to be made in the next few months to Magistrate Courts and in particular, to motor related 'offences' such as speeding, driving a vehicle without a valid road fund licence, failure to advise DVLA of new keeper etc). These offences (of which there are over 750,000 per annum) are to be REMOVED from the Magistrate Court and instead, will be dealt with 'without a hearing' in a 'specialist court' much along the lines of the Traffic Enforcement Centre. TV icence offences (and many others) will also no longer require 'a hearing'.

Of huge significance is that once implemented, all Magistrate Court FINES will also now be subject to a separate charge to cover the costs to the court of running the court and administering the fine. At present all court fines have a Victims Surcharge (which funds victims services) applied to them but the government is of the view that offenders who use criminal courts should pay towards the cost of running them. Apparently the new 'charge' will make it possible to recover the costs from offenders and that this will in turn lead to a saving for the taxpayer. The new 'charge' will take a number of 'factors' into consideration. One being whether the offender pleads guilty.

The new 'charge' will be added to the amount of the fine.

Very worrying times ahead. I will post details on the appropriate thread shortly.