Page 6 of Shepway District Council's Variance Analysis 2014/15 Quarter 2 shows that its forecast to make an additional £150,000 income out of liability orders: " Increase in court cost income due half year review and based on income for 2013/14

Does Shepway District Council use Folkestone Magistrates court to obtain liability orders? This might be of interest....

Cornwall Council has recently confirmed this.... Imposing....costs " I can also advise you that the ratepayer has the right to challenge the sum payable on the summons including the costs at the liability order .

If you mean "to appeal their cases" you mean contest the reasonableness of the costs at the liability order hearing, then any defendant can do this already.

Update – 127 cases adjourned in folkstone

Not making an excuse for what their jobs entail but you can understand why they think it justified when the government tell them it's an essential service they provide for the country's good law abiding citizens who do pay their debts with the message reinforced with the reward of being permitted to rifle through the pockets of the poorest of society. A bit off the topic really I suppose, but the people responsible for the reason EAs exist are the ones kept safe in the houses of parliament who don't have to deal with the real life consequences of their policies.

Turning up the pressure..... Haringey council urged not to seek costs for CT summons/liability orders until legality and rationality reviewed

Obtaining a Liability Order... " Similarly, the existence of an outstanding or disputed claim for council tax benefit is not a valid defence against the issue of a liability order, but an authority would not normally proceed while a benefit claim was unresolved, unless it was made after the issue of the summons (R v Bristol City Magistrates Court and Bristol City Council ex parte Willsman and Young 1991) . EDIT: LGO Decisions EDIT 2: Paragraph 3.11 (the Council Tax Practice Note No. 9): " 3 . 11 A liability order may be made notwithstanding that the taxpayer is disputing the amount of council tax benefit which has been awarded or the fact that council tax benefit has been disallowed. The billing authority should, however, as a matter of best practice check that there is no outstanding benefit claim and refrain from taking enforcement action where such bona fide benefit claims have been received and are unresolved. However, if a claim is received after a summons has been issued or on the day of the hearing, then authorities should proceed to the liability order stage but give an undertaking to the claimant not to enforce the liability order until the claim has been dealt with.

I found this as well which might be a handy reference: Obtaining a liability order

Don't know whether this is similar.... Setting Aside Liability Orders: http://www.sarahrobsonbarrister.co.uk/Legal-Articles.html Scroll about half way down

Excellent result. The London press reports with a couple of articles: Vicar emerges triumphant after court hearing Vigil held outside High Court for retired vicar

Hope this is relevant (haven't seen the original thread) Technically the Council have the law on its side but you might find some points to argue on the reasonableness of taking Court action whilst a dispute or claim is ongoing. Although circumstances may be different, there should be some relevant information in the post linked to below: LGO decisions

CIPFA 2001/02 Spreadsheet cells for Enfield (X,40 and Y,40). For Haringey cells (X,41 and Y,41).

It's interesting to see how the legal professionals present the issues in the skeleton argument. The Reverend's witness statement seems to have all angles relevant to the appeal covered. In my opinion one of the most compelling arguments for which a case IS MADE surrounds the consolidation of the entire costs of the council tax liability order hearing (and the rest) which are claimed merely for issuing the summons. Councils are obviously making more money this way because those defendants paying before the case is heard (including costs) are still paying costs in respect of their cases proceeding to court (an expense the authority does not incur). Many councils have picked up on this and similarly inflated their summons costs, and over time shifted all the so called liability order costs to what councils claim to be incurred in respect of issuing the summons. A sample or two to demonstrate: Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council in 1997/98 applied costs only if they obtained a liability order (there were no Summons costs). By the following year, costs remained at the same level but were recharged to residents in respect of issuing the summons. This billing authority saw the financial benefits of ignoring the law before most and could be thought of as pioneers. Leicester City Council did the same (though also increasing the sum) as did Milton Keynes. In 1999/00, Luton Borough Council similarly had no summons costs with the total charged to obtaining a Liability Order. Its switch to completely front loading the costs was more gradual with it roughly charging half for the summons and the other 50% for obtaining a Liability Order until 2007/08 when the costs were completely front loaded. North East Lincolnshire Council in 1998/99 had no summons costs but by 2004 the ratio of the costs were around 50:50. It wasn't until 2011 that the regulations were being completely laughed at. Before its 2011 budget, costs were applied in accordance with the regulations; initially at a lesser sum than the total in respect of the summons and a further sum on being granted the liability order. In reviewing its policy, involving raising the overall costs as well as front loading them, the cost with respect to instituting the summons saw an overnight hike of 120%. The council’s decision to no longer carry out the procedure in accordance with law was a budgetary measure that intended to raise an additional three quarters of a million pounds (£752,000) in costs income over a four year period. This was the preferred measure – in response to public consultation – over alternative proposals to introduce a charge for replacement bins or garden waste collections. Haringey has done similar which is clearly outlined in the court papers. In the Reverend's witness statement (Paragraph 12) there's an observation which raises a valid concern which is why "the same magistrates in the same court building allow Enfield Council (the next door local authority) seeking to enforce the same liabilities to charge only £70 for a summons, and to add a further £25 if it is necessary for them to go on to seek a liability order". Looking at archives of the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy's revenue statistics reveals there has not always been this disparity. In 2001/02 for example both Haringey and Enfield both (within a penny or two) had the same standard costs which were £30 for the summons and £10 for the liability order.

OK, done!

I'd appreciate that, thanks.

What I meant was I can't read the documents. They possibly need attention and uploading to the Reverend's website again. Are you able to read them? If so I have a problem with my PC.

Latest developments.... TOTTENHAM MAGISTRATES ASLEEP ON THE JOB – hearing at Royal Courts of Justice on 7th October 2014...... EDIT: The two documents provided as links in the article (docx), witness statement and Skeleton argument need some attention!!!

There appears something to back-up the consultation (likely to be an after thought). In association with it there's another calculation supporting court costs, though it makes a convincing case to argue that the regulations are not being complied with. Whilst all the calculations have in one way or another provided such evidence, none have been so cut-and-dried as this one. It doesn't require a legal expert to see from the spreadsheet that inappropriate expenditure (liability order costs) have been front loaded to the summons. Though perhaps not so obvious are the costs attributable to work involved after the court case which are incorporated unlawfully into the summons costs. Included in the almost £400,000 are post liability order activities such as making attachments of earnings/benefits, dealing with arrangements and administration costs in referring cases to bailiffs. Again it doesn't require legal knowledge to interpret from the regulations which state that incurred costs are allowable only up until obtaining the liability order, that expenditure after that has been incorporated into the costs.

Still waiting for the outcome of the investigation into the complaint about police conduct. EDIT: If anyone remembers the issues regarding the old fees for attending to remove goods when no goods were removed, the document below – if known about at the time – would have cleared up much of the confusion as to when the fee could be lawfully applied. It seems councils were negligent in defending their contractors. Milton Keynes Code of practice – page 16.

Let's just remember the old regulations where issues similar to the ones on this thread were frequently argued. The advice then was to pay the bailiff rather than the council because local authorities would allocate any monies paid direct to the council (less than the full debt) to the bailiffs in respect of their fees. It was discovered that this wasn't the case at all. I'm getting a sense of Déjà vu here.

What leads you to assume these have anything to do with me?

In relation to debtors making payments direct to the Council where arrears have been referred to the Enforcement Agent, one council is saying the following: If the amount paid is a monthly instalment amount or an agreed arrangement with the Council for a current years charge which has not been referred to the Enforcement Agent, the payment would be allocated against that charge. If debts have been referred to the Enforcement Agent and the Council receives a payment which does not match a current instalment plan, the Council would check all recovery levels for that charge payer before notifying the Enforcement Agent of the payment. It then goes on to say that "once debts have been referred to the Enforcement Agent debtors are informed all payments must be made direct to the Enforcement Agent until paid in full" What the council has provided is only half an answer because although we're told that the Enforcement Agent would be notified of the payment it doesn't tell us whether payment with respect to enforcement fees would be forwarded to the contractor. This does raise a more serious issue as to whether the council's contractor is allowed access to the debtor's account via the authority's council tax software.

It would be interesting to know how the fee allocation would work in the following scenario. Here it is: North East Lincolnshire Council have a Liability Order for £60 relating to a previous year's account. I suspect they may now be considering the options available to them to recover the outstanding sum (they were not in agreement of applying to the court to quash the order). It seems the only option available is for it to instruct its bailiff contractor to attempt levying distress (taking control of goods) as all the other options are not available to them. The council has no way of making an attachment to wages nor to benefits (I receive neither) and the sum is far below the amount which would allow the council to instigate bankruptcy or apply to the court for a charging order. Whether the council would instruct its bailiffs is debateable as they have been warned that Humberside Police would be immediately alerted who are more than aware of its contractor's track record. However, this is another matter. Assuming they did instruct the bailiffs. They'd be able to claim a maximum of £310 for their fees (being unable to take control of goods and add the £110 "sale or disposal"). The bailiffs of course would not be dealt with and payment to the council would continue as normal for my current year's liability. Because the debt relates to a previous year, the council would be breaking the law if it allocated monies with respect the bailiff's fees, especially if it was stated (or implied) for which years debt my payment was intended. If payments matched exactly the instalment amount (current year), this would be enough to imply that the payment was paying off the current year's liability. I don't see how the council, in these circumstances, could lawfully pay the enforcement contractor unless it paid it itself. EDIT: Nothing to do with 'freeman on the land' or 'debt avoidance'. I'll give you disrupting enforcement though.

Quickly looked through this and can't see where it is stated or implied. May have missed it or got the wrong document. Is this the one: Explanatory Memorandum to the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014