These six figured salaried Judges know only too well that the "public sector" side of the bread is the side that's buttered and will ensure that remains so.

Wolverhampton pensioner issued with summons after council computer glitch Like the name of the councils new computer system, it probably translates into english as "Aggressively" " The council’s £8.3 million Agresso computer system went live on April 1, with chiefs saying it would save millions in the long run .

Rev Paul Nicolson council tax hearing Tottenham Mags Court, Lordship Lane, N17 6RT 1.30pm Wednesday 11th June......

They refused to answer the FoI request which would have indicated whether they were still charging inappropriately. Apparently there was more behind why they refused to disclose the data than just that they determined the request was part of a wider campaign. Apparently there were no more head H charges imposed from May 2013. Selecting either cell G14 or G15 of the spreadsheet reveals an anotation which reads: It happened too late in the day, and infuriating that they are now obsolete and replaced with more highly inflated charges so they can now do what they do within the boundaries of the law.

It would be in the Reverend's interest to archive Chiltern District Council's 16 March 2010 Cabinet report on its review of Court Costs in respect of unpaid Council Tax and Business Rates. A very persuasive argument is made about Chiltern (and Haringey, as the law applies equally to all councils) in respect of front loading costs for instituting the summons; more so in the case of Haringey owing to the fact that all £125 of its costs are imposed on issue of a summons (Chiltern currently charges 52% of its total £125 costs on issuing the summons (£65). The document makes it categorically clear that the proposed changes i.e., introducing costs on the issue of summonses and increasing the overall amount, was solely as a budgetary measure to plug a gap in its finances by achieving a 10% saving on the Revenues Service budget. The gem however is what is stated at paragraph 4: Essentially any costs it claims for work once they have obtained the liability order is unlawful and in any event, they have admitted to the fact that the majority of costs (they are lawfully entitled to) is NOT incurred on instituting the summons, but from the application for a liability order at Court.

If proof was ever needed that the levels councils charge in Court costs bare no relation to their incurred cost, it's provided courtesy of Dartford Borough Council: General Assembly of the Council 28 February 2005: Appendix C: Appendix A: General Assembly of the Council 27 February 2006: This goes to show that figures are just made up and rubber stamped by the Magistrates and made worse by the fact that budgeted costs (regularly exceeded) are wildly inflated to begin with and include inappropriate expenditure of general administration.

CIVEA's example is relevant only where goods are sold under Regulation 13 of the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014. Paragraph 50(2) of Schedule 12 to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 (from which the Regulations derive) defines "Proceeds from the exercise of an enforcement" which includes "money taken in exercise of the power" as well as "proceeds of sale or disposal of controlled goods". However, Regulation 13, where proceeds less than the amount outstanding are dealt with, provides solely for "where the goods are sold or disposed of at public auction". The Regulations do not appear to provide for pro-rata payments where the enforcement power relates to money taken in exercise of the power. Additionally you might find (for outsourced enforcement) that even the £75 compliance fee may not be recoverable by the EA unless all the "Amount outstanding" has first been recovered. Local Authorities may well take advantage of paragraph (3) of Regulation 13 and contractually require this as it only states that the enforcement agent may recover the compliance fee. " (3) Following the payment at paragraph (2), the enforcement agent may then recover the compliance fee .

This seems to be an accurate transcript of "the scanned original...." JUSTICES' CLERKS' SOCIETY Procedure in Liability Order Applications 1. Background Council has been contacted by Peter Downton of HMCS Enforcement Team concerning the way HMCS records the making of liability orders in Council Tax cases due to challenges to the process in various quarters, including MPs. The concerns raised are: a) that the procedure is not transparent; b) HMCS can not demonstrate that it is accurately recording the orders made c) whether the orders are in correct form since they are not wet-ink signed. Council has considered the issues, and in light of the procedures operating in their courts is of the view that the following process is lawful and transparent. The key objective of any procedure is that an accurate record is made of every decision of the court and retained. It is not possible for each individual complaint to be case entered, recorded, and resulted, (save by a massive expansion in the number of legal advisers and court assistants). However the objective is achieved within existing resources by recording results against the council's printout and retaining that as an annexe to the register. 2. Procedure: Issuing summons 1. The council delivers one or two complaint lists to the court with their fee (or an undertaking to pay it later) 2. The list is reviewed by a legal adviser with delegated powers who issues the summonses 3. Either one copy of the list is returned endorsed to the council and the court retains the other endorsed list, or the court retains a single endorsed list and the council is informed of the outcome (in reality it is extremely unlikely that any summons will not be issued so this does not need to be a detailed notification). The council then print the summonses, pre-printed with the Justices' Clerk's signature, and post them out. 3. Procedure: Liability Order Application 1. The legal adviser is given an up to date printout of the Council's applications by a Council representative. This will set out the name and details of each defendant and against that the order the Council wishes the court to make. 2. The court hears a bulk application for all non-attenders: the Council representative proves the technical requirements and gives evidence that the sums levied have not been paid. 3. Any defendant attending or writing to the court is dealt with individually and orders made (or not made) in their case. Their attendance or otherwise is also recorded. 4. The legal adviser records the overall number of liability orders made, withdrawn, dismissed and adjourned. This may be recorded on a file cover or on the copy printout, or both. 5. In addition for each case where the court does not make the order set out in the Council's printout, the legal adviser notes the actual order made against the defendant's name in the printout. 6. This means that there is a definitive record on the Council's printout of all orders made. 7. The numbers of orders granted, withdrawn etc. recorded by the legal adviser, are input after court and appear in the Libra register. 8. Any adjourned cases are individually case-entered and resulted (to generate a door list and appearance in the Libra diary). 9. The council's printout, marked up by the legal adviser, is kept permanently, as an annex to the register. 4. Orders The Council's software generates the liability orders. These may be rubber-stamped or pre-printed with the Justices' Clerks signature. There is no requirement for a wet-ink signature. This is for two reasons, set out in the Magistrates' Courts Rules 1981. Firstly, the Rules only require signatures (of any sort) on forms prescribed by the Rules (Rule 109(1)) and a liability order is not prescribed. Even if it were, rule 109(3) states "where a signature is required on a form or warrant other than an arrest, remand or commitment warrant, an electronic signature on the form will suffice. 5. Procedures prior to the hearing The Court and its staff should not give the impression that the Council is in charge of the process.

CIVEA has as much sway as far as the law is concerned surrounding bailiffs (Enforcement Agents) as as bunch of 'have a go heroes' in a pub thinking they have a say. They are no less a leeching, parasitic quango as are the LGO, IPCC, Parliamentary Ombudsman or any of the other bogus watchdog organisations which predominantly mug the taxpayer for their existence. CIVEA should rightly be completely ignored (especially by easy target, naïve local authorities) and the Statutory Instrument adhered to, which in these matters – unless enforcement is kept in house – states that the bailiff (EA) has no claim on any fees paid the council other than the "Compliance fee" (£75).

To be honest, it doesn't shock me anymore, but it's still amazing how thick skinned they are and confident they will get away with it.

How the Ministry of Justice, who are the biggest bunch of (rhymes with) books under the sun, have the front to come out with that is beyond me.

Taxpayers Against Poverty "Tottenham magistrates refuse to provide FOI copies of their letters to Haringey Council agreeing £125 court costs" The Ministry of Justice obviously has no intention of breaking its tradition of being absolutely useless at locating any information asked of them. On matters related to the Reverend's post, specifically with regards his statement, that: "The council could have reduced costs annually, but so far hasn’t", there might be something of interest in NELC's recent costs review. This is probably the first time a local authority has ever reviewed its cost and decided that in order to be within the law, i.e., not make a profit, the standard costs would need reducing. The 14% reduction of the £70 – which was the amount they were imposing – does not bring the amount down to a reasonable level but should at least set a precedent for all local authorities to follow (including Haringey). It has been recognised that there is potential for legal challenge should income generated exceed expenditure. The fact that income is exceeding councils' costs has been made more obvious because of benefit reforms that have seen the number of summonses issued doubling in some councils. The 17th February 2014 Cabinet report acknowledges this: Review of Council Tax court costs

Interesting FoI request made to Cheshire West and Chester Council. Bristow & Sutor's email response: " Nothing Has changed, no-one has ever dared challenge it in court. It is easy for people to spout on the internet, less so to convince a judge of their half baked ideas . Bristow & Sutor are duping Cheshire West and Chester council with the misconception that just because "seized" requires no removal that this idea can be adapted to raising a fee for making available goods for collection (Head H). This is exactly how North East Lincolnshire Council pulled the wool over the eyes of Humberside Police. The definition of "seized" which may apply to goods kept on the debtor's premises (Evans v South Ribble 1991) is a different issue. What they are unwilling to acknowledge is that "seized goods" can not refer to goods that are seized, via for example, a walking possession agreement (WPA) for the purposes of raising a head H. It is not in dispute that "seized goods" can refer either to goods secured via a WPA or those removed from the debtor's premises, however, those secured by WPA can not be made available for collection, so "seized" – for the purpose of raising a fee under head H – refers only to seized goods which have been removed. Jacobs response to Cheshire West and Chester's enquiries (although redacted) may be referring in its email, to the legal opinion brought to light in the thread: Councils (Ross & Roberts) opinion..... The following quote makes you think that Jacobs are confident that the Police will never consider there a criminal element whilst an avenue also exists in Civil litigation to challenge the Statutory Instrument. " Ultimately only a Court can decide the above and as the new Regulations come in on 6th April I can't see the above will ever have be tested in a Court (if these people really thought they had a case they would have done by now) which means all the assumptions made in the article and foi are just arguments but not law .

I wonder if the government would want to forfeit all the $millions each year it collects from the liability order tax (sorry, court costs)? Also, if the money is stolen at source the government wouldn't benefit from the £millions each year it obtains in interest because of early collection of monies from householders who have instalments withdrawn. Lastly, the thousands of bailiffs put on the dole won't have their livings subsidised by the poor any longer, the benefits bill would escalate for these people.

CASE AGAINST £125 COSTS TOTTENHAM MAGISTRATES ALLOW HARINGEY COUNCIL TO COLLECT FROM COUNCIL TAX LATE AND NON PAYERS The High Court agrees to pre Judicial Review hearing. Note: There's a broken link in article to Haringey Independent....this one works: Vicar to take council tax case to High Court

This is where we're at at the moment. The complaint has been reclassified from a Direction & Control to a Conduct matter, so can now be appealed. However, the IPCC's hands are tied as the law says that they have to refer the appeal back to Humberside Police to investigate itself. The outcome will as a formality be appealed, but according to the 'Fact Sheet' Appealing against the Local Resolution process it states that their decision is final: However, this is at odds with what the IPCC says which is if you were unhappy with the outcome of this appeal there is an option to apply for a judicial review of the appeal decision.

DCLG Guidance on Enforcement

Did you try appealing to their better nature?

Their response shows they can rely implicitly upon legislation having been devised so water tight that they can be confident they will never be exposed to scrutiny by the IPCC. The revised response (CO 19/14/SB) in its opening paragraph makes it clear that subsequent correspondence sent the force has either not been read or not understood. Paragraph 3 of Annex A raised the matter of misleadingly using the term “organisational” rather than “direction and control” to classify complaints. The force has blindly continued using the same term (organisational) and incorrectly assumed that in order to classify a complaint as a "Conduct matter" it must be recorded against an individual. Its revised response reiterated everything word for word that was argued to be misconceived in the above link (Annex A) – The Home Office Circular 47/2004 – Believing council officers there has been no criminal wrongdoing etc. etc.... They even had the front to reiterate the part that was a figment of their imagination – one because there was no visit and two, because it was not the same complaint. " I have also liaised with Detective Inspector Welton, who dealt with the same complaint you made to Humberside Police in 2009. You may recall he visited you at your home and explained the reasons why your allegations were not of a criminal nature .

Paragraph 12 defines the law which is relevant to your dilemma. Paragraph 16 is the view of the Appellant with regards front loading costs to a householder's account before the Magistrates have heard the case. Some more thoughts on the situation: The court at this stage (the stage you are at) has no influence on how much the council may claim in costs and is of no consequence whether deemed reasonable by the court. The amount paid or tendered to the authority is neither prescribed nor can a standard sum (with any legal standing) be agreed with the Court. It is therefore open to the Council to accept payment at this stage, having flexibility on the amount of costs tendered (as may vary from one taxpayer to another). If failure to agree costs or reach a compromise, then it would only be reasonable that the authority itemise and support its claim. Only cases reaching a hearing would require the Bench being satisfied that costs were reasonably incurred. Once again, the authority should itemise and support its claim (this time for the Bench) on each application, in order that the appropriate award is made. The Court would then be making an assessment of the costs, including those of instituting the summons, which before the hearing (and may have been settled with the council) was not a matter for the court.

The force has sent a revised account of its outcome to the complaint (first sent 4 February this year) because initially it wrongly recorded the complaint as Direction and Control rather than a Conduct matter which may be appealed. Police Complaint Reply 01 May 2014 The response should have been the appeal outcome but the force has evidently taken advantage of drawing the process out by copying almost word for word its decision (4 Feb) and providing details of how the decision may be appealed. There would be no surprise if it was discovered that the force outsourced the job of dealing with these issues to primary school students, but to challenge them, gave no specific details about the issues. One example: They think the allegations are about a specific incident affecting myself, not one about hundreds of thousands that adds up to £millions.

The farcical appeal process continues and the unacountable IPCC effectively admits to being a sham governing body with no teeth. Assurance sought that IPCC will intervene From : "outawla" To : "!enquiries" Sent : Wednesday, April 16, 2014 Subject : Re: Your IPCC Reference: 2014/023292 Dear ipcc As I'm sure you'll appreciate, I have no confidence that Humberside Police will investigate itself in a manner other than in its own interest. Considering that, what assurance can you give me that when the force delivers it verdict that the appeal is unfounded, the IPCC will intervene? Yours sincerely IPCC's Response From: "!enquiries" To: "oulawla" Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2014 Subject: RE: IPCC ref. 2014/023292 Dear Mr outlawla Thank you for contacting the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC). I acknowledge receipt of your email dated 16 April 2014. I note from your email that Humberside Police will be considering your appeal against the outcome to a complaint you have made. To answer your question, the IPCC would not be able to intervene after the appeal is considered, as only one appeal can be made for each complaint. If you were unhappy with the outcome of this appeal the only option would be to seek legal advice and apply for a judicial review of the appeal decision. As my colleague explained in her last email, Humberside are the relevant appeal body for this complaint. If the relevant appeal body is the force, as is the case here, then this means that the IPCC cannot consider the appeal. Who the relevant appeal body should be depends on the nature of the allegations made in your complaint. The IPCC deals with appeals that relate to the most serious allegations (e.g. death following police contact, serious assault by police, police shootings etc), whereas all other appeals are dealt with by the force. Therefore, any further queries you have regarding this complaint should be directed back to the force. You may also find it useful to contact the Chief Constable of the force or the Police and Crime Commissioner for Humberside to make them aware of your concerns. Yours sincerely Customer Contact Advisor Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC)

Who does the Bury Council spokesman think he's kidding? Disabled Prestwich pensioner's fury as she is 'harassed' by bailiffs

It would if enough people were prepared to make a stand and testify that our police are s......y criminals.

This is the "Appellant's Grounds of Appeal" in the First Tier Tribunal (information Rights). Something from paragraph 11 may be relevant.