Jump to content

outlawla

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    1,790
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Everything posted by outlawla

  1. Nottingham City Council obviously has a Monitoring Officer that is fully conversant with the relevant laws.
  2. It was held in the judgment in Peter v Anderson as follows: " A person who is indebted to another on two several accounts, may, on paying him money, ascribe it to which account he pleases.–and his election may either be expressed,-Or may be inferred from the circumstances of the transaction . It therefore seems that it would be unlawful if money paid to the local authority, with the intention of paying the council tax liability outstanding, is not allocated to that account but instead paid to the bailiff contractor. This would be an entirely different account to that which the debtor intended payment to be allocated. One local authority has admitted that the bailiff fees are a separate account from the council tax liability: " Enforcement agent fees are due to the enforcement agent and not to the council. They will not show on an individual's council tax or non-domestic rate account as they do not form part of the amount due to the authority .
  3. I believe payment was made to the council via automated telephone banking (and accepted) so if it is the customer's council tax account which the proceeds have been allocated, then the council would almost certainly be breaking the law if it diverted any in respect of bailiff fees, unless the customer expressly instructed the authority to do so.
  4. The first Reverend mentioned was the one who featured in Cluedo. The latter was the real life Vicar of Dibley.
  5. Agreed! Engaging the services of a profit making company which probably has demanding shareholders to keep happy and who are paid dividends, could be considered an extravagance.
  6. I'm guessing if the issue wasn't considered a legal matter he would have similarly been disinterested and would do nothing because it was not a legal matter. There ususally has to be something in it for them to get interested, like they can use the issue for political point scoring.
  7. It was suspected in all honesty that there was an ulterior motive for the unexpected contact by another Detective to arrange a meeting that would in some way lead to another underhand move by Humberside police. However, after attending the station and discussing the failings to be investigated it was thought eventually, the issues were going to be addressed, and the years of incompetence was just some bungling Keystone Cop thing. After enquiring why the update is over a month overdue there was no reply. It therefore seems that the whole thing was a hoax. There must be a point when the IPCC can no longer ignore the gross misconduct in this matter and call in the Chief Constable and Crime Commissioner. There is even a reasonable chance that the latest supposed Detective Chief Inspector is using a pseudonym and the whole stunt a sham.
  8. I agree! Where a taxpayer exercises his right to challenge the costs in his own circumstances the obligation is on the council to calculate them in that specific case. The judgment in the Reverend's case relevant to this matter is at paragraph 46: I think it should also have been added that the "standard" costs could be reduced in circumstances where it was demonstrated that there were less costs incurred than those that made up the standard sum.
  9. There is another angle which is to look at how many staff are needed (or a rough estimate) to justify the amount of hours that have been attributed to the work involved in the summons production. It seems as though the hourly rate based on average staffing costs is £23.17. Therefore if you add up all the relevant costs, i.e., those which refer to average staffing costs you can begin to roughly get an idea how many full time staff there would be needed to do the all the work claimed (See below, Total = £254,051.23). £46.37 + £834.12 + £278.04 + £590.84 + £23.17 + £69.51 + £99,932.21 + £69.51 + £69.51 + £139.02 + £69.51 + £139.02 + £23.17 + £139.02 + £590.84 + £23.17 + £2,085.53 + £148,928.67 (11% of Revenues & Benefits Budget) Divide the Total by the average staffing costs ..... £254,051.23 / £23.17 = 10,964.662 Hours Assuming a full time employee works 40 hours a week with 4 weeks holiday (no sick days), then the number of hours attributed annually for each employee would roughly equal 1,920 hours. So:- 10,964.662 Hours / 1,920 = 5.7 full time staff working constantly with no dinner or tea breaks exclusively on summons work You can also estimate how many staff are employed to account for the other 89% of Revenues & Benefits Budget to see how feasible that might be. £1,204,968.30 (89% of R&B Budget) / £23.17 = 52,005.539 Hours 52,005.539 Hours / 1,920 = 27.08 full time staff
  10. Apart from the breakdown not splitting the costs total between the summons expenditure and liability order, they have divided the total figure by the number of liability orders obtained which would be about £10 less per summons if they had divided the total figure by the number of summonses. £260,924 / 3,496 (liability orders) = £74.60 £260,924 / 4,052 (summons) = £64.40
  11. In my opinion the cost are blatantly unlawful. In general terms there are elements of the standard £75 costs that can not be compliant with the Regulations, based as they are on the premise that any expenditure considered attributable to recovery and enforcement activity (however tenuously linked) is recoverable by recharging it to the defendants through costs claimed in an application for a Liability Order. More specifically the summons costs includes liability order costs. The law only provides for costs to be claimed by the council in respect of obtaining a liability order, if the case proceeds to court and a liability order is obtained. Where payment is made before the case is heard (after service of a summons) only costs up to the point where an amount has been paid or tendered are provided for in the regulations. Observing legislative restrictions that limit costs to expenditure incurred up to the point where an amount has been paid or tendered, and, mindful that this council claims an identical sum in cases that proceed to court, then it is falling foul of the law because the further cost incurred in obtaining an order is not borne by the council/taxpayer. The expenditure is obviously being unlawfully added in respect of instituting the complaint (summons issue). It would also be falling foul of the law if the further cost incurred after obtaining a liability order were included in the costs claimed to obtain the order or for the summons. They have included expenditure for reminders/final notices which I believe the High Court judgment in your first post has determined does not constitute legitimate expenditure, on the basis that recovery has not begun at that stage. The £99,932 attributable to checking etc. is very dubious as I have received summonses after being fully up to date with instalments. I'd say the council more likely than not relies on the automated council tax system. 11% Revenues & Benefits (£148,928) suggests that this relates to customer queries, setting up payment arrangements etc., and could even be incurred in respect of these activities after the council have obtained a liability order which is about as unlawful as it gets.
  12. Can't see the image files. If you convert them to pdf then upload them that should work, or link to them some other way.
  13. Local authorities used to (and probably still do) pay £millions to opportunist companies like Experian to do checks to identify potential fraudulent single occupancy claimants by identifying post and for whose attention it is for as it seems might have happened in your case. I should think it would just need explaining to the council, as you have in your original post, and add that whoever has made the checks needs to do a more thorough job and if you discover taxpayer's money has been wasted on Experian or some other opportunist company that they ask for the taxpayer's money back for doing an abysmal job.
  14. Wouldn't normally be as obnoxious as this, but if by referring to 'disobeying an order of the court' you mean a council tax liability order, seeing as it's you, you are wrong.
  15. Why have you posted then if you consider the subject raised to be irrelevant. Are you one of those internet trolls?
  16. They seemed to get arround the Civil/Criminal thing due to the threat of imprisonment being seen as a coercive method to obtain payment rather than a punishment, but of course there has to be a scapegoat now and then against whom the threat is carried through. Essentially though, imprisoning a non-payer is not punishment. It is only one of a range of remedies open to councils for recovering unpaid Council Tax. So, by definition, it is not a punishment which is reinforced when considering that upon being imprisoned and the outstanding debt owed is paid, then the debtor is released. – AND – From the library of the House of Commons (which appears to be no longer available): (Imprisonment and debts) " This is considered to be a coercive measure, designed to elicit the funds, rather than a punitive measure for not paying . When Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service grant a liability order to the council it does NOT do so for non-payment of council tax, rather to empower the council to recover unpaid Council Tax.
  17. The MoJ's response regarding R. v. Brentford Justices ex parte Catlin in the Plymouth Magistrates court FOI request inadvertently provided a lead to the far more incriminating substance of the case. Read "in this link" from the point where it states: "Lord Chief Justice Widgery was ruling on the affixing of a judge’s signature by rubber stamp....."
  18. Thanks old bill for that useful link. That legislation (in theory) has got to make a significant difference to the way the public are fobbed-off etc. Makes you wonder if the unexpected contact regarding the matter has something to do with the threat of a 14 year stretch for partaking in corrupt or other improper exercise of police powers and privileges.
  19. In light of the thread posted yesterday regarding the bailiff attack which highlighted the police bias towards the establishment, this has reminded me to up-date the matters relating to the mishandling of issues raised with Humberside Police's fraud department. The briefest summary of the most recent events: 1) The force wrote on 9 November 2013 outlining why it had taken the decision not to investigate the allegations, despite the evidence supplied. 2) On 24 November 2013 complained about the department's decision not to investigate North East Lincs Council/Rossendales in the matter of allegations made. 3) 4 February 2014 Head of Department wrote supporting the decision not to investigate, adding that there was no right of appeal against the outcome as it was recorded as an organisational issue (Direction and Control) not a "Conduct Matter". 4) Wrote IPCC/Humberside police 25 February 2014 complaining about the force wrongly recording complaint (in order to remove any right to appeal). 5) IPCC wrote on 2 April 2014 upholding the complaint and agreed that the matters raised were not suitable to be classified as Direction and Control. The force agreed to re-classify the matter as a "Conduct Matter" therefore allowing a right of appeal. 6) Humberside Police set out the procedure it would take in the light that there was an appeal right in a letter dated 26 June 2014. 7) Police wrote 27 August 2014 stating that the complaint that was upheld on 6 August would be referred to a Temporary Detective Chief Inspector who would be in contact in due course. 8) Contacted the IPCC 19 December 2014 (there had been no further contact since 27 August). 9) IPCC reiterated that it could not intervene. Last response from IPCC 27 January 2015. New Events 10) Receive letter out of the blue 31 March 2015 to arrange convenient date and location for meeting regarding appeal. Arrangement was made for 16 April 2015 at Grimsby Police station where terms of reference agreed for the review with an update of progress by 18 May 2015. 11) Still awaiting an update of progress.
  20. The facility to comment has been disabled on that article. I doubt the police are sorry about that as I'm sure there would be plenty of people expressing criticism about their bias toward bailiffs.
  21. Here's another (only for £60) but it has appeared on my last two council tax bills and is for £60 that wasn't paid of the £70 standard summons costs that was appealed in the High Court.
  22. A final notice is not necessary in the circumstances mentioned in paragraph (3) of regulation 23 (see below) See regulation 33 (paragraph 3): In the quoted scenario, after the second payment was short by £4 this should have triggered a reminder. If the account was not brought up to date within 14 days the clowncil would not need to issue a final reminder and would be permitted to issue a summons. Maybe there was no reminder? Additional information: The number of reminders is dependant on whether an account is brought up to date after the first one in the financial year. For example, if after the first reminder an account is brought up to date in accordance with the demand, they must send another reminder if payments are subsequently missed. If the account is not brought up to date after being issued a first reminder they can go straight for a liability order.
  23. This doesn't seem to have any bearing on the point you're making but just for the record, S.I 1994/505 (reg 5) amends regulation 33 of the 1992 Council Tax Regulations. The amendment primarily clarifies the position regarding when a final notice need not be served if the debtor fails to pay any instalments due within seven days of the issue of a reminder notice. Regulation 33 amended is as follows:
  24. The article in the above post originally stated that the Reverend's meeting with the auditor would be on Monday 8 June 2015. It appears the meeting will be tomorrow (Friday 5 June 2015). Haringey Independent
×
×
  • Create New...