From briefly looking at the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014, a noticeable change from the old regs (in respect of fee allocation) is that the government or councils may no longer claim that enforcement comes at nil-cost to the taxpayer. Regulation 13(3) read in conjunction with 13(6) allows that where enforcement is outsourced the private firm will be entitled to the compliance fee (£75) from proceeds of a sale even if the amount is equal or less than the debt owed the council. Either scenario (payment equal or less) would mean a £75 sum, instead of reducing the outstanding monies owed the council must be paid to the bailiffs (sorry, enforcement agent) Interestingly, by virtue of Regulation 13(5), if enforcement is kept 'in-house' the regulations provide that any outstanding enforcement fees are taken before the original debt, thus safeguarding the council's (taxpayer's) interest, whereas for outsourced enforcement, the law provides differently. Effectively what the contractor must do is go whistle for them owing to the law stating that they come last in the pecking order, or at least for fees additional to the compliance fee, i.e., enforcement (£235), disposal stage (£110) and disbursements (£?,???.00) Do we assume that Regulation 13 applies where payment (less than the amount outstanding) is made or are there other relevant parts of the new regulations to deal specifically with payments paid directly into the debtors' council tax account, for example? I should add that the parliament's intention appears to have incorporated an element of ambiguity and grey areas to give the justice system scope for extorting additional sums through costs orders, for example where aggrieved parties dare to challenge the interpretation of the legislation in civil proceedings.

I think the bit about adding X amount to everyone's council tax bills is. Evidently the government is swayed by organisations such as CIVEA who let's face it aren't reputed for getting things right. Take the following as example taken from the article: " .... Nottingham City also collected just 93.5 per cent, compared to Dudley Borough's more impressive 98 per cent. If Nottingham could achieve the same collection rate, council tax could be slashed by 4.5 per cent and still rake in the same for the town hall. This would reduce the bill for a band e property by £94.05 . Firstly, what is not emphasised is that the 93.5 per cent is an in-year collection rate and the reduction of £94.05 for a band E property is not a true representation of a single year, rather a snap shot of the figure at that time which may increase or decrease as arrears are successfully or unsuccessfully collected. It sounds very much like CIVEA is the mouthpiece of Communities and Local Government minister Brandon Lewis, whose catch phrase is: "Every penny of council tax that is not collected means a higher council tax for the law-abiding citizen who does pay on time". Secondly, it's doubtful that CIVEA will have factored in all the money gained in court fees and set that off against the non-payment that allegedly adds £94.05 to each band E dwelling. Nottingham raised £1.24 million in 2012/13 through Summons and Liability Order costs and by virtue of instalment withdrawal, many accounts are settled early with lump sums gaining interest for the council sooner.

A link to some of today's Daily Mail propaganda: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2614952/Revealed-How-council-tax-bill-cut-100-councils-forced-pay-debts.html

'Case stated' (draft) High Court appeal, (Grimsby Magistrates' Court) "admits"

The Welsh amendment (cap on costs) provides a key argument against Haringey loading all its £125 charge to the summons. The cap (in this instance), and the fact that it only applies to Welsh councils is of no consequence as it is the amendment, and the added emphasis given to the 1992 Council Tax Regulations, that is of relevance to Haringey front loading all its costs. Particular clarity of the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 is given by the Explanatory Memorandum at paragraphs 4.2 and 4.3 (emphasis added): It is clear from a previous post (#37) that Haringey has taken advantage over a number of costs reviews to gradually move the costs described at paragraph 4.3 above to those described at paragraph 4.2, thus generating more income. Regulation 3 of the 2011 Welsh amendment itself (S.I 2011/528 (W.73)) leaves no doubt that parliament meant for there to be a lesser sum of costs payable on the issue of the summons, than the total costs of obtaining the order (emphasis added):

There are some concerns surrounding Haringey's costs, over and above whether they are deemed excessive. A judge might find it an important consideration that the Council has front loaded all the costs to issuing a summons, where they were once considered split between the summons and additional costs imposed on a Liability Order being granted by the court. Records show that in 2006/07 only two thirds of its total expenditure was considered to be incurred by Haringey on issuing the summons with an additional third added only if the householder failed to settle the outstanding Council Tax before the court hearing. A judge alerted to this would no doubt want to know why in 2008/09 all the expenditure was incurred on issuing the summons and what changes in administration brought about this. He'd probably put 2 and 2 together and realise that the balance of costs had nothing to do with it, rather the council realised that it could make more money this way. Could be worth keeping an eye out to see what evasive answers Haringey will come back with to this...

Today's post on the 'Taxpayers Against Poverty' website: High Court Agrees that I have a point about court costs for council tax liability orders which "ought in principle to be heard" "... new and relevant information has become available .." It appears Haringey Borough Council have submitted to the Magistrates' court a calculation justifying their £125 summons costs, but reveals that the council included £1.08 million of this as being overheads for running the council tax department. Also revealed in cabinet documents is that Haringey has admitted to setting 'costs' at the most they can get away with, further admitting this is done as a means of deterring taxpayers of non-or late payment which is obviously quite unlawful.

This, the ("Metropolitan Police Service") is their answer. On skimming over the response it would appear they operate under a combined system of exploiting loopholes in Section 163 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and its own "made-up" policy.

The question is whether the second paragraph above contradicts the first because of a date error??? The law states: "If, after a summons has been issued....but before the application is heard..." Also Reading Borough Council's website: Council Tax - Your Summons, (page 2) The Council's website again, what will happen if I don't pay. It states Liability Order £40 but does not specify an amount for Summons costs. I've checked (2012/13). Reading Borough Council charged standard costs of £59 summons and £40 Liability Order.

What about cases which shouldn't even have got as far as the Liability Order stage? Those for which if councils bothered monitoring recovery rather than relying entirely on their Council Tax software would know there was no risk of non-payment. Local authorities are not by law obliged to apply for a court order, the law only provides that they MAY. Should a person be happy about paying an extra few £hundred on top of their liability to bailiffs because of their council's negligence?

I'm surprised Reading Borough Council has admitted that it adds Liability Order costs to account balances before the court date. Adding summons costs before the case has been heard is a grey area, but imposing the additional costs of bringing the case before the court (Liability Order costs) can categorically only be ordered by Magistrates on hearing the case, and then, at their discretion. The law which provides for and distinguishes between the Summons costs and Liability Order costs is Regulation 34(5) and (6) & (7) of The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 Relevant to instituting the Summons (5): Relevant to the Liability Order (6) & (7): Additional Information: Magistrates' court have discretion and are not obliged to award the standard costs asked for by councils. This reinforces the point that councils are not permitted to add these costs (especially Liability Order costs) to a persons account before the hearing date. Paragraph 7 of this "draft case stated" by Justices in a High Court application: " We recognise that in all cases where costs are claimed we always have a discretion as to whether to order them, and if so, in what sum. Although the appellant admitted the matter of complaint and costs would therefore normally follow the event, the fact that the respondent asked for the normal amount of costs in this case did not prevent us from reducing the amount or refusing to make an order for costs at all .

I wondered whether this local rag knew what it was talking about or was just guessing as they normally do.... Buckingham today – bailiffs rule change.... " When an EA receives an instruction from South Northants Council (SNC) to collect unpaid council tax or business rates there will be an immediate compliance fee of £75 payable by the account holder. Any payments made after the instruction has been issued will automatically go towards paying these fees...

The Guardian shows in an article today (bailiffs lose powers under new laws) it is similarly ill informed about current laws.

Good news bad news! Good The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) have agreed that matters raised about Humberside Police were not suitable to be classified as Direction and Control and the force has agreed to re-classify the complaint as a conduct matter. The net result being that where the right of appeal to the IPCC did not exist (Direction and Control), it does now that it has correctly been classified as a conduct matter. Bad The law says that the force, not the IPCC, decides which organisation deals with the appeal so the IPCC has forwarded the appeal to Humberside Police for them to consider. Need I say more! On matters related....Cheshire West and Chester residents are putting their local authority under pressure...

Sure it wasn't the Brewery with the same name?

An update on the Reverend's battle to get his case into the High Court. Judicial Review filed march 4 at High Court There's more to why the authorities are pulling out all the stops to prevent the case being heard by a proper court. This "(FOI) response", and what goes before, shows Haringey Borough Council's desperation.

It's looking like the licence for bailiffs to print money – the recent gift from the MoJ – is going to leave even less room to manoeuvre for challenging. Therefore, it's imperative that the past abuse is not forgotten and the relevant schedule 5 fees, for which local authorities are responsible for imposing wrongly, should remain under pressure for their refund to be arranged. Interestingly, NELC, one of the Council's under the spotlight, has not exactly held up its hands and admitted the maladministration, but implied that maybe, at least in the case of Head H (the so called redemption fee) that the fee should only have been raised where goods had been removed. " A redemption charge is imposed for the return of goods where they had been removed . As far as the other fee under the spotlight, "attendance to remove", time will tell....

Another ****my, good for nothing local authority in the news. Coventry Telegraph: "Earlsdon florist locks herself into warehouse and stages hunger strike in city council rent wrangle"

FoI response from the Metropolitan Police Service " The MPS does sometimes work in partnership with Bailiffs. Vehicles are stopped lawfully using police powers such as Section 163 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. Bailiffs may conduct their own checks on the vehicle whilst Police Officers conduct theirs. If appropriate, the checks that the bailiff carries out may lead to a discussion with the driver about potential civil liabilities. These checks are carried out at a wide variety of operations for a wide variety of reasons. The work carried out by the MPS at the scene would take place, regardless of the attendance or not of the bailiff and therefore no more money is spent to fund these operations than would have been spent anyway.

The Mirror went with this one as well. Similar in The Guardian (Bath & North East Somerset Council)

Tottenham Magistrates' Court are showing how desperate they are by preventing the Reverend Paul Nicolson's appeal from getting the attention of the High Court. Tottenham Justices are obstructing proceedings, and so the Reverend is now having to make a further appeal (Judicial Review) for mandatory order in the hope of forcing the Magistrates to "state a case". They are refusing to do this without such coercion for some reason.

The reply was sent yesterday, here: ("LINK"). The response:

Some interesting discoveries regarding Humberside Police's Professional Standards investigation into why the force is turning a blind eye. It seems Humberside Police is wrongly classifying complaints as organisational decisions (direction and control) when clearly they are conduct matters. If the complaint was correctly classified then there would be a right of appeal to the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) The Police Reform Act 2002 was amended by Paragraph 5(2) Schedule 14 of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 so that where a complaint relates to a direction and control matter, there is no obligation for the police to refer the complaint to the IPCC. Note: Humberside Police's ending statement: " Please be aware that as your complaint refers to an organisational issue there is no right of appeal against the outcome of this process. This is in accordance with Paragraph 8A Schedule 3 [ Paragraph 4(8)(a) ] of the Police Reform Act 2002 . The relevant case law for defining direction and control complaints, as opposed to conduct matters is (North Yorkshire Police Authority v IPCC (Jordan) 2010), the IPCC explains more. The fact that the professional standards branch wrongly categorised the complaint such that there would be no right of appeal against the outcome is further evidence of corruption within Humberside police. I am still not convinced however, that their tactics are going to prevent this getting the attention of the Chief Constable, Police and Crime Commissioner & IPCC. EDIT: To view the judgment (North Yorkshire Police Authority v IPCC (Jordan) 2010), the lower case 'a' in admin in the web page address bar needs editing to 'A'.

There is nothing more to add. This should be sent to the Chief Constable of every police force and Local Authority in the UK, and of course not forgetting the Home Office and DCLG.

I don't understand! Was the defence suggesting that the offence was any more serious by the fact it was against a bailiff? If so, why?