outlawla
-
Posts
1,790 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Post article
CAGMag
Blogs
Keywords
Everything posted by outlawla
-
Seeing as though nobody else has shown an interest in your offer to explain the difference between binding, gluing, seizing, amalgamating or whatever the terminology you are wishing to apply to your argument, I would be happy for you to differentiate.
-
It depends whether you mean a real average of liability order application costs or the average of the various sums which councils impose. If it was the latter then I'd estimate that to be around £80 to £90, which would at a guess be well over 10 times the cost to councils taking into account economies of scale. You could more cynically ask, why legislation provides that a liability must first be obtained through the Magistrates' court to enable further powers of recovery. It could be understood if the proceedings were not just a rubber stamping exercise and provided a level of protection from out of control councils. Council taxpayers would be no more at risk from reckless local authorities if the law allowed recovery without the charade of them having to apply to the court. However, if the court order was not necessary the government would see a significant loss of court fee revenue as the 3 million or so summonses each year must be relied on to subsides HMCTS.
-
It seems after checking out its neighbouring authorities, its claim that 'a combined charge of £100 is inline with Tyne and Wear neighbours', is not entirely true. This would appear questionable as Newcastle's proposed increase would bring its costs to a level exceeding most of its neighbours. For example, South Tyneside council's are recorded at being £62.00 overall with summons charged at £38.00 and £24.00 added if a liability order is obtained (2013/14). For the same year Durham County Council charged £80 overall. However, there are apparently at least two of its neighbouring authorities which have proposed similar increases and are in line with Newcastle. Northumberland County Council is one, and because North Tyneside's costs evidently mirror Northumberland's, NT is another. Prior to 1 April 2011, Northumberland charged overall costs of £60 but from then increased to £100. The proposals were detailed in its Council Tax Billing Options (Appendix E): There was opposition from members of a Scrutiny Committee of the proposed increase to £100 and was suggested that a more modest increase to £80 would be fairer. The proposal was defended by it being pointed out that the 'costs were at the discretion of the Magistrates Court and that they in no way covered the cost of recovery action. It was also noted that it was only those who had not paid their Council Tax/Non Domestic Rates, despite having been given all the available options, who would be penalised.' It is held on record that at the time, discussions were underway with North Tyneside Council regarding shared services and was suggested no decision made on increasing costs until discussions had taken place to ensure that both Authorities were charging the same level. Though unable to find a link to anything documenting the outcome of the discussions with North Tyneside, it is known that the proposed costs are currently charged and can be safely assumed that the increase was agreed and applied in respect of both authorities. Another reference is found in the February 2011 Medium Term Financial Plan 2011/2015 and Budget 2011/12 at paragraph 54: Another of its neighbouring authorities, Gateshead Council proposed increases to raise an additional £100k with these court costs. The public were consulted on choices available to make savings as part of the budget setting process for 2014/15 and budget planning for 2015/16. It was proposed in the report that Gateshead council could generate additional income by increasing Council Tax and Business rates court costs. Page 31 of its 15 October 2013 report to Cabinet documents the relevant matter, as follows: Another document (Comprehensive Impact Assessment 2014-16), which at the time only appeared to be available via Google's cache (no longer any trace) added that the savings would be made by increasing its current charge for court costs by £15 from £70 to £85.
-
Surprised to see Councils still admitting to increasing and front loading court costs as their motive for generating extra income to plug holes in their budgets and to act as a penalty. Page 6 of Newcastle City Council's 2015/16 Budget proposal
-
That would appear just opinion because if the FoI requests you refer to are the ones I've seen, they specifically raise the concern that if public money is being diverted to the authority's contractor which would ordinarily have gone to provide public services then the government is helping enrich these private firms and at the expense of the taxpayer as a whole.
-
It may have been censored and the reason it makes no sense as it stands.
-
If you are saying that any fees accrued which haven't been paid are extinguished once the debt has been returned to the local authority then that seems to be the obvious way to go. You would need simply inform the council that you are not refusing to pay, but not willing to pay any monies in respect of bailiff fees, therefore waiting until there is conformation that the debt is no longer in the hands of the bailiff. If the council were awkward by dragging the process out for any length of time you could also put in a formal complaint and/or contact your councillor to raise the issue that by not re-calling the debt the council is responsible for delaying council tax which is needed to provide vital services for the community.
-
What can not be simpler is that the debtor has no obligation to deal with the bailiff. If the debtor does not engage with the bailiff and he has no goods (outside of his premises) that can be taken control of, what advantage is there for the authority or its opportunists bailiffs to continue? Though not encouraging non-payment of debts, I would much rather see people with next to nothing not having to part with the little they have to prop up ****my local authority CEOs and government ministers. Pickles and Grayling, I'm sure are not loosing any sleep.
-
Local authorities could be found at fault and were entirely responsible for opportunist bailiff firms screwing the respective council's residents because the revenues manager or CEO wanted rewards for putting pressure on the contractors to do more and more work for free.
-
It's funny that 'kick-backs' should be mentioned because there is a strong sense that certain bailiff advice is offered on the basis that kick-backs are offered from the government.
-
I might be wrong but the above example tells me that, although you defaulted on the agreements, the authority knew you were not a non-payer but because you defaulted more than once it would use court action and the application of costs as a penalty. In other words exploiting the judicial system. EDIT: Even the Ministry of Justice thinks that the liability order costs are a penalty, so what hope is there: " The threat of issuing a summons, allied to the costs which will be applied for acts as an incentive for people to meet their liability
-
I don't entirely understand what you're getting at, but I don't think the work involved in administering AoEs is necessarily insignificant. Also I'm not convinced that many of the cases referred to bailiffs relate to council taxpayers who pose a long term threat of non-payment. Automation does not cater for these cases.
-
The government is in the business of maximising its income. It wants every penny of Council Tax it can get its hands on to pay for public services...it doesn't want massive amounts of that being diverted to bailiff companies.
-
I don't think you will get anywhere with the signature argument (see below, item 4) though in my opinion the case law is valid, however, these are Kangaroo courts remember. 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.
-
If you brought your account up to date, and it was your first reminder, then the law says should there be a subsequent failure to meet payment, then the council must send you another reminder before withdrawing the instalment facility and proceeding to a liability order application. It's possible (owing to not knowing the exact instalment amount) that your payment didn't exactly cover the overdue sum. This is more likely because the council tax system's parameters were set on your account for instalments over 10 months. If you had council tax outstanding for a previous year then any payment which didn't match the computer's set parameter would likely be allocated to the previous year's account. I doubt that is the case or it would have happened sooner. In my view, if any of the above accounts for why they proceeded with court action, then it clearly shows that they have no one checking before issuing summonses and rely entirely on the council tax processing system. That would also be reason to argue that they had not incurred expenditure to justify summons cost of £80. The Magistrates' court is also obviously to blame by rubber stamping liability orders. There's probably only one Clerk to Justices serving several Magistrates' courts in the relevant local justice area. This one Clerk's signature is likely to be pre-printed on each local authorities' summons template which are churned out each month on instructions from the council's computer system. Some relevant case law: In the case between "Regina v. Brentford Justices, Ex parte Catlin" it was held that “a decision by magistrates whether to issue a summons pursuant to information laid, involves the exercise of a judicial function, and is not merely administrative.” Lord Chief Justice, Lord Widgery’s closing judgment: “ ... .before a summons or warrant is issued the information must be laid before a magistrate and he must go through the judicial exercise of deciding whether a summons or warrant ought to be issued or not. If a magistrate authorises the issue of a summons without having applied his mind to the information then he is guilty of dereliction of duty... .
-
If that information on the Government's website originates from the Department of Communities and Local Government then I think you can take it with a pinch of salt. Have a look at the link (sample first reminder): First (and only) reminder
-
Be handy to know which local authority....it appears all costs are front loaded to the summons (£80). I take it the summons doesn't state that further costs may be incurred if the court grants a liability order? If so there are good odds on there being some relevant information floating about which might be useful to include in your complaint.
-
The 'Demand Notice' is the initial Council Tax bill (which they didn't send). That is why (technically) none of the recovery procedures that followed are lawful. See regulation 23.... EDIT: Be aware of amendment to regulation 23. The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) (Amendment) Regulations 1994 (Failure to pay instalments)
-
Failure to pay instalments Regulation 23 SI 1992/613
-
The number of reminders is dependant on whether you bring your account up to date after the first one in the financial year. For example, if after the first one you do bring your account up to date in accordance with the demand, they have to send another reminder if payments are subsequently missed. If you don't catch up after being issued a first reminder they can go straight for a liability order.
-
I would think that alone would be sufficient procedural impropriety for wrongful court action.
-
You have to put much of the blame on local authorities for bailiffs, pre-April 2014, being creative in applying fees and charges. The pressure put on them by councils was not just the obvious 'fee commission' which Harrow were exposed for, but for additional services they were expected to do on a free of charge basis (amounting to the same). Attachment of earnings, 14 day enforcement letters etc., were expected as freebies and probably why local authorities were notorious for letting them get away with making up their wages with excessive and inappropriate enforcement/van fees. East Riding of Yorkshire Council's service level agreement (Item 7 of Appendix A), details among several free services it expected, was for its bailiff contractor to provide an automatic number plate recognition vehicle in its enforcement area.
-
What the MoJ has effectively admitted is that private bailiff companies can not be trusted to apply appropriate fees and charges, so as a measure, rather than prosecuting them, they have thrown more money their way in the hope that they won't be tempted to break the law.
-
What planet are you inhabiting?
-
This is all a bit too late, but in my opinion it would have been better not to have paid the bailiff fees. The bailiff is effectively taking a risk incurring any expenditure in the hope that the individual owing the Council Tax falls for believing that he has some legal obligation to pay the council's contractor. Applying the same logic as when police ignore complaints about bailiffs defrauding the debtor by dismissing them as civil matters, then not paying the bailiff should be viewed equally by the law.
Latest
Our Picks
Reclaim the right Ltd
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS