It's quite shocking that millions of pounds of taxpayer's money will have been spent on the salaries of professionals to do the necessary research in establishing how much is the minimum amount necessary for someone to get by frugally, and then ignore all that by introducing the reforms which effectively takes their benefits below that level.

Up to 40% of council tax levied on low-income households unpaid (The Guardian)

The bailiffs using spy cameras to snatch cars off the street for minor traffic fines This is how bothered the police were about Lambeth council and Equita's £700 ransom...... " The police operator told me this was now a ‘civil matter’ and the police would be unable to help me recover my car. He simply gave me the phone number for a debt recovery company called Equita Ltd....

On an individual basis the element of costs which is the Magistrates' court fee is not an obvious cause for complaint, however, there is still a concern with the volume of applications made by local authorities that can only mean councils are paying (via the taxpayer) to subsidise the overheads of running the court service. This is especially the case where costs are not collected when waived for example. The responsibility for this substantial transfer of funds from councils to the MoJ is entirely with the local authorities because the Council Tax Regulations DO NOT oblige the council to apply to the Magistrates' court for the issue of a summons, the law only provides that they "MAY" make complaint. In cases where Magistrates' courts and local authorities apply the Magistrates' court fees Order Regulations correctly, the sums paid to the court would exceed (in many cases) the £3 sum per application for a Liability Order. I would estimate the majority of Magistrates' courts are unaware (and local authorities too, or pretend to be) that the Magistrates' court fee (£3) is payable for each householder who is jointly and severally liable for the debt. In those cases where the Local Authority pays as per the relevant Regulations (apparently there are ones that do), it means that if, for example, there are four adults within a household who are liable for the debt, the council are obliged to pay £12 to the Magistrates' court in fees for instituting the issue of a single summons. In such cases, this money will be retained by the Ministry of Justice, whether or not the Local authority successfully obtain the Liability Order, or if the authority choose to waive the costs.

It might not just be the number of council staff attending court. Another factor to consider might be the mode of transport?

I tend to agree with the comments regarding this article on the whole, which so far suggest that the aggrieved party should not have pursued the bailiff, whom we all know relies on state protection to succeed in profiting from the public. The point being, if the state allows these opportunists to terrorise people in hardship, it is not entirely their fault (the bailiffs) that they take advantage and profit from robbing them given the government has licensed it. However, I assume Mr. Elliott would have had more respect from the public had he gone after the two police officers (inappropriately taxpayer funded) accompanying the opportunists. One better though would have been if he had gone after the authority nearer the source of the rot , Judge Peter Kelson. The taxpayer is forced to remunerate these people with excessive public funds, i.e., their six figure salaries. The press – had it swayed public opinion this way, as opposed following the traditional route (which lets face it) the state would wish – the easily manipulated public would be presented a more honest portrayal of what the real situation was. Just to remind anyone taken in by "official" events reported in the article; they should remember the convicted party will have likely – in order to lessen his sentence – agreed to the statements reported by plod.

Quashing of Liability Orders (Explanatory Notes). Schedule 4, 12A The reference with regards the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 is Regulation 36A

They've handed you this one on a plate. Nothing could be more black & white The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992, Regulation 34(7)(b) It categorically makes no provision for any expenditure incurred post liability order.

In someone's opinion it would appear that the £3 Magistrates' court fee payable per summons is to more than subsidise the courts overheads. Many millions of £3s makes up a lot of money. That person is also of the opinion that because not all the debtors who receive a summons have to pay the summons costs, the Taxpayer in general is footing the bill for much of this, i.e., unwittingly paying for the running of our courts.

Thanks old bill! Useful references. I suppose this the relevant webpage (CPS) for one of the offences: Misconduct in Public Office

Since getting started on a lengthy project which has effectively been to expose corruption encountered within public bodies, and what incidentally has turned out to be rife in complaints procedures (especially bogus governing bodies) having procedures laid down in statute (LGO, IPCC, PHSO etc.), Misconduct in a public office has been mentioned in a couple of letters so far and may well appear in one or two others yet. In relation to the issues outlined in this thread it has already been mentioned in a letter to The Police sent 24 November 2013, as per the quote: Another instance, in which secretary of state for DWP, Iain Duncan Smith is being challenged on why it pressurises jobcentres with league tables, etc., in a bid to control branch managers (or insult their intelligence, depending on their intellect) in meeting sanction targets. This is mentioned at paragraph 144 of a report shortly to be submitted to the Director General of Jobcentre Plus Operations:

Don't know if this is a figment of my imagination or I'm misunderstanding something. From the same FoI requst " I would point out that costs were not specifically for obtaining a liability order, they were simply added to the customers account when the order was obtained. In response to your request, I have included as attachments:

You are probably right in there being no prospects of succeeding in disputing the costs. However, legislation provides only for reasonable costs incurred in connection with obtaining the Liability Order. The law makes further provision that if, after a summons has been issued but before the application is heard, the debt is paid or tendered to the council (including costs reasonably incurred in instituting the summons), it shall accept the amount and the application shall not be proceeded with. Whether the Liability Order is obtained or the application is not proceeded with, the council is not permitted to add on what the hell it likes to subsidise Council Tax administration, or to set-up, manage and monitor payment arrangements, before or after issuing the summons and any expenditure after obtaining the Liability Order. To further analyse this it would be handy to know the actual costs and whether they are composed in proportion with those for instituting the summons and an additional amount for when it's necessary to proceed with the application.

Enlightening response regarding Manchester City Council's revenue stream from Court costs: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/213496/response/548342/attach/4/Tom%20Bola%20attachment.pdf https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/213496/response/548342/attach/3/Tom%20Bola%20attachments.pdf

The problem is how many of our public servants who are benefiting from this theft from the taxpayer are going out of their way to defend them? EDIT: There is an assortment of words including table, brown, under, envelope, hander, back etc., etc. you could chose from to answer this I suppose.

There is an answer to this: "proportionate investigation". Have letter and decision to uphold appeal, however, I suspect that it will only focus its investigation on procedural errors in recording the complaint wrongly etc. The correspondence ends as follows:

Glad you mentioned that. Just took a second look at the report and it states at paragraph 3.3: " 3 . 3 In 2013/14, the Council Tax office issued 42,280 reminder notices, 14,024 summonses for non-payment and passed 7,200 debts to Enforcement Agents (bailiffs). The Council’s strategic partner, Capita, runs the Council Tax service, and incurs a considerable amount of cost in issuing these notices and in referring debts to Enforcement Agents. These costs are passed to the Council as part of the contract cost of running the service . By admitting that costs incurred for referring debts to the bailiffs is attributed to the court costs, it has implied it has no understanding of the relevant law which only allows expenditure to be imposed up until the point that the Liability Order is obtained from the Magistrates' court.

Swindon Borough Council's Cabinet report at paragraph 3.4 (see below) appears to be blatantly admitting that the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations are not being complied with as the law makes it categorically clear that these costs are not to be levied for the purpose of running the Council Tax department. " 3 . 4 When summonses are issued, the Council charges £60 costs to residents and a further £40 costs if it has to obtain a court order. These costs have been agreed with the Magistrates and are the same throughout Swindon and Wiltshire. In total, the Council received £700,000 of costs income in 2013/14 and this was used to offset part of the Capita cost of running the Council Tax service. The Swindon Advertiser reports.

It's confirmed a lottery in Cannock Chase Council /Jacob's case. Whoever's name gets pulled out the hat takes the rap it seems......Family of 'wrong' Darren Smith wins fight against 'bully' bailiffs over parking fine demand

This is in the CIPFA Guide to the Council Tax which suggests that the council would be breaching the Human Rights Act if it were to fail to notify you of a hearing.

Medway Council call off £1,200 JBW bailiff visit

In complete agreement. We already have one council that raised its cost on the strength of a ballot..... Scroll down to the heading "Income Generation" Budget Consultation-2011-12

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmtran/writev/dda/dda09.htm

Great Yarmouth Borough Council's Public Consultation says it all: Have your say on change Section C – How could the borough council save money? The questionnaire (last question on page) is asking the public how willing they would be for the council to increase 'summons costs' as a measure for saving money, or plugging a hole in its finances. Ranging from Very willing to Not at all willing: