outlawla
-
Posts
1,790 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Post article
CAGMag
Blogs
Keywords
Everything posted by outlawla
-
Apparently there are no depths to which Capita won't sink as it acquires the country’s biggest private parking operator, Parking Eye...... We saw off the rogue clampers. Now let's purge the parking ticket pirates
-
A speech by Andy Sawford (Shadow Minister (Communities and Local Government) in parliamentary debate would seem relevant to this article with regards Local authorities incurring new costs through the changes to Council Tax Benefit: " I was quoting the Local Government Information Unit: “Local authorities have incurred new costs through the changes to Council Tax Benefit, including the cost of designing and modelling schemes, communicating changes, consulting with local residents, paying IT suppliers, and setting up a system for appeals”.....
-
I would have thought the cost of running the courts in England and Wales would be well covered with the the rubber stamping "conveyor belt style" applications. See last post for example: A surprising response by Newham today by the way. It didn't mean to exempt the release of information. That response was sent in error.
-
It would be interesting to see the other "Key Officer Decision" reports if there are any in relation to costs reviews other than the two already obtained. The other one that Newham provided a link to was the report of 25 April 2012, and though not quite as incriminating as the other document, I'm still at a loss as to why they chose to release this but not the May 2010 minutes. The Comments of the Finance Officer for instance: You will observe immediately that Newham "DOES NOT" state that it only recovers 50% of these costs, rather it budgets "for only 50% recovery". Even if this is a realistic estimate, then using its 2010/11 figure of 23,890 summonses it would mean that roughly £36k for that year would have been paid to the MoJ in Magistrates' court fees (£3 per application) for costs which weren't recovered. 23,890 x £3 x 0.5 (50%) Looking at it from another angle, the non-refundable fee of £3 which is payable by Newham to HMCTS for each application to the Magistrates' court has either been unenforceable or been waived and so is the Council Taxpayer who has borne the cost of funding a £36k transfer to another government department (the MoJ). Scale this up by however many local authorities there are and this stealth tax is considerable. I suppose the Finance Officer was confident that nobody (or organisation) would ever scrutinise the report, otherwise he would not have stated there would be £6k additional expenses such as postage, when it was already stated that its Council Tax software (Northgate) would be set to issue fewer reminders before issuing a summons.
-
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 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.
-
Birmingham City Council makes an admission in FoI response with regards the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) 2014 (Council Tax cases): " Once a debt is returned to the authority, any outstanding fees owed to the enforcement agent cease to be recoverable by either party
-
The post below on another thread should give an insight into what may have happened with payment allocation for different year's bills. The link to a FoI request in that post has more detail: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?428224-Council-tax-woes-threatened-summons-ignored-correspondence-etc....&p=4569071&viewfull=1#post4569071
-
What seems to be the biggest factor surrounding Flintshire's decision to bring bailiff services in-house is that the legislation provides that fees and charges are to be taken before the original debt (unlike when outsourced) and has discretion even in whether those fees are applied. re " Although fees are statutory a decision could be made on a case by case basis to reduce fees payable ". Whether Flintshire has interpreted the law correctly is another matter, it certainly appears not. Paragraph 3.02 of the report suggests it hasn't fully grasped how payments are to be distributed with respect in-house enforcement as opposed to when outsourced. It states there that: " the new fee structure is statutory, with payments being offset against charges first ". There's no indication that it is making this statement with reference to in-house but to how payments are offset when contracted out. However, this is not the view most Local Authorities share which is that the law states that the payments are distributed pro-rata.
-
Considering below, I should think not, or would likely to be ruled unlawful by the High Court if challenged. Council Tax prosecutions hit new high as benefit reforms take hold Attfield, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Barnet [2013] EWHC 2089 (Admin) (22 July 2013)
-
News North Wales reports that Flintshire Council bailiffs could be used to recover debts, but disturbingly admits that it estimates to make a surplus of £100k over costs. The article doesn't provide a link to the Cabinet report but there is one below for anyone wishing to verify NNW's story. CABINET Tuesday 15th JULY 2014 ENFORCEMENT ACTION FOR THE RECOVERY OF COUNCIL TAX AND NATIONAL NON DOMESTIC RATES " The council will benefit from the substantial surplus generated by fees providing the council with an income stream from fees charged by the EA service ..... " 5 . 02 An internal EA service would provide an income surplus over costs of a minimum £97K per year .
-
The Guardian – Council Tax: a chaotic way to impoverish the already poor
-
Don't know about anyone else but I believe them.
-
Was the "How bailiffs are paid" discussion just a spoof thread to distract attention from the 15% MET bribe issue?
-
How the Bailiff gets paid?
outlawla replied to Talk sense's topic in Bailiffs and Enforcement Industry - General discussions
I think the exact Pro-rata payments would be: Enforcement fee (£235 divided by £835) x £75 = £21.11 Local mafia fee (£600 divided by £835) x £75 = £53.89 EDIT: I can see it coming though, that the EA would get the calculation mixed up and do the following: Enforcement fee (£835 divided by £235) x £75 = £266.49 and put it down to a genuine slip of the pen when scrutinised. -
Not sure about the 1912 ruling, only that the costs are non compliant with the council tax regulations. The council would be grasping at straws if it tried to pull that one. I would say with almost certainty that different year's liability must be treated as separate debts. The council tax demand no doubt specifies 2013/14, 2014/15 etc. This is what it says in the judgment: Peters v Anderson [1814] Eng R 418: Later on it states: " It was not equitable that the Plaintiff should increase costs against the Defendant by keeping on foot two causes of action, when he might have done away one action by applying these payments thereto . You could liken the above to how local authorities deliberately engineer defaults. On the other hand it may just be that it is not cost effective to have staff interfering with the computer system to reallocate payments to another year's account.
-
It might come in useful to download a copy of this: Recovery of Court Costs – Council Tax Liability Orders
-
The solution to your first question should be simple as in theory the council should simply tell you what payments were made to which account and when. However, as you've found out, nothing is simple with local authorities. If you look at the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 it looks like they have jurisdiction for both Criminal and Civil Procedure. Sections 1 to 50 covers Part I (Criminal Jurisdiction and Procedure) and sections 51 to 74 Part II (Civil Jurisdiction and Procedure). Council Tax liability order application are presumably (although doubtful they conform properly to either) proceeded under part II.
-
Apart from intransigent council staff I think some of the issues in your dispute are down to the council's need to limit the number of man hours attributed to dealing with administration. They achieve this via their council tax system where payment allocation is automated but relies on payments exactly matching the instalment amount on the bill (which could be different for different years) or where a special arrangement is made the allocation would also rely on payments exactly matching the agreed amount. If payments don't exactly match, then that money would automatically be allocated to the oldest debt, thus allowing your current bill to accumulate arrears and another summons comes through your door. The fact that this is allowed to happen because of automation is bad enough, but for council staff not to intervene when they are alerted is criminal. Have a read of this Freedom of Information request for more information. Allocation of payments to accounts relating to different years Take particular note of the emails and web links for 3 April 2014 and annotation 14 May 2014
-
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.
-
Both Sheffield City Council's contracts with Equita and Rossendales specify that they must allow a minimum of 30 days between the compliance stage and enforcement. " A period of 30 days (for NNDR a period of 10 days only) from the date the case is loaded onto The EA Company’s case management system is to be allowed to meet the following minimum requirements of the compliance stage of the enforcement process
-
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.
-
Wigan Council seem to have made a commitment in that regard... " Wigan Council currently uses the services of three firms of Enforcement Agents for the recovery of Council Tax and Business Rates debts. The new regulations mean that all Enforcement Agencies must comply with the regulations as a minimum standard and local authorities and the Enforcement Agency must not seek to circumvent the regulations in any way. However, local authorities can require the Enforcement Agencies they use to provide an additional level of service that aims to provide debtors with additional time or opportunities to engage with the Enforcement Agent at the compliance stage in order to allow them the opportunity to avoid their debt progressing to the Enforcement Stage where additional fees are incurred. Wigan Council maintains Service Level Agreements ....
-
A Crapquita stitch-up.... A widow’s unfair fight with bullying council tax debt collector
-
Something to add a bit more weight from the Ministry of Justice: " In response to your question, I can confirm that the law requires the court to order the costs reasonably incurred by the council obtaining the Liability Order (Council Tax (Admin and Enforcement) Regs 1992, reg 34). It is open to the court to conclude in individual cases that the sum applied for by the council does not reflect the actual costs reasonably incurred, and therefore amend the amount accordingly .
Latest
Our Picks
Reclaim the right Ltd
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS