outlawla
-
Posts
1,790 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Post article
CAGMag
Blogs
Keywords
Everything posted by outlawla
-
One authority has produced a breakdown which accounts for costs on an individual basis. The problem is there are not enough working hours in the year for it to be credible. The £72 summons cost is made up (among other expenditure) of the time of two employees (1 hour each) and accounts for £60 of the costs. Senior Officer - Sets Parameters 1 Hour @ £20 Making Complaint - Team Leader 1 Hour @ £40 It was confirmed that only 1 Senior Officer and 1 Team Leader is involved in the work described in the breakdown and so removes any ambiguity that there may be a squad of people undertaking this work. Records held tells us that the authority issued 23,285 summonses in 2013/14. Assuming both employees have 4 weeks holiday a year with no sick days, based on a 5 day working week, and if they were solely dealing with summonses they would have to work a 97 hour day.
-
Harrow's Cabinet response to the recommendations of the Council Tax Support Scheme Challenge Panel. Page 7 of the 11 December 2014 document. Note: The reversal of costs will knock off £5, as they were £125. The council is pointing the finger at the Magistrates' court which is a fair point, but Harrow is equally responsible for claiming disproportionate costs. Harrow's view of what it is legally permitted to recover may differ from the average reasonable thinking person.
-
This sounds like an invite.
-
If what you're saying is true and the majority of councils are handing over money to private companies in cases where the council tax debt is not even settled, i.e., diverting taxpayer's money away from providing services, then when the National press begin reporting this – and therefore becomes public knowledge – there will be hell on. Any Local authority with a half decent Monitoring Officer is unlikely to allow this. The potential for legal challenge with regards misuse of public monies is endless.
-
The important thing is that the above related to when enforcement fees and charges were local authorities'. Notwithstanding that, most authorities outsourced enforcement so they could get round that contractually, i.e., paying bailiffs before the CTAX debt. Now we have fees and charges which are effectively the enforcement contractor's; they in no way make up part of the debtor's council tax account. In-house enforcement is another matter, even with the new laws.
-
If you look at regulation 35(3) of SI 1992/613, it states as below: You can trawl through all of Part III of the MCA 1980 if you like, but ultimately the amount stated on the liability order is not to be treated as a sum adjudged to be paid by order of the court.
-
Looks like East Riding of Yorkshire Council doesn't argue about the fact that the 1814 case law still applies:
-
That was quite smug of him/her. Why don't you put whoever said that right by pointing this out.... Reference to 1814 case law
-
The IPCC's responses are becoming more pathetic each time. The latest reply (a different Customer Contact Advisor) makes certain that the IPCC in no way acts in the public's interest or holds the police to account. It was by chance that the IPCC's Customer Contact Advisor who apparently sent today's fob-off email came up in an article: And another IPCC whitewash!
-
You know that the government is not going to (OFFICIALLY, WITH THE PUBLIC'S AWARENESS) pay money to private bailiff contractors out of payments that council tax payers have paid to their local authorities in respect of their council tax liability. Promoting such propaganda makes you wonder why professionals who advise victims affected by this extortion do not challenge this. The impression from responses to FOI requests made to councils that the Ministry of Justice is permitting taxpayer's money to be handed to private bailiff contractors will be interesting to see just how true it is. Personally, I don't think that the government would want bailiff victims to know that councils' misuse of public money this way would never happen, neither would they want the general taxpayer to be under the illusion that the government would give their money to increase bailiff companies' share prices. A number of councils have been asked to verify if the following is the way debtors are dealt with so that the Taking Control of Goods (fees) Regulations 2014 is complied with at the same time the public interest is served. The reply(ies) will be interesting if any bother to: " [Would it] be easier if the following can be agreed is how both the public interest is served (in that taxpayer's money is not being diverted to the bailiffs) and the Taking Control of Goods (fees) Regulations 2014 are being complied with:- Although payments are allocated to the contractor as per the regulations, i.e. the first £75 and further sums pro-rata, this is purely on an accounting basis and money is only ever transferred to the contractor when the debt is fully settled (including fees). This gives the contractor an incentive to continue enforcement to collect any remaining Council Tax as he won't be entitled to receive payment in respect of his fees until all the debt (including the additional charges) has been paid. There will however be some cases where the bailiff is unable to take control of goods whilst unpaid sums remain and there comes a time when the debt must be returned to the authority. In those cases, as I believe the 2014 regulations provide, the contractors would not be entitled to any payment in respect of their fees and so this would ensure that no taxpayer's money is...being diverted to the bailiffs because the fees originally allocated to the contractor pay off (or go towards) the council tax. The Taking Control of Goods (fees) Regulations 2014 will have therefore been complied with .
-
You need to remember that local authorities, being local authorities, are incapable of being open when it involves sensitive issues, as Lichfield District Council go on to substantiate: 24 December 2014
-
Council tax debt collecting service could be brought in-house " .... One of my concerns is that the council will get a cash benefit if it rushes to the bailiff stage - how will this be controlled and monitored? As if it isn't, then this will be a backdoor increase in tax - an increase for those already struggling to pay .
-
North Lincolnshire Council shares its Revenues & Benefits service (or at least some aspects of it) with North East Lincolnshire Council. If you contacted them in October with details of your move and that you are entitled to 25% discount and they have ignored you then they appear negligent. Given that they may have done this to exploit the Magistrates court to generate more costs income, then they deserve this being reported to 'Action Fraud' (it wants to know about these things). Ask them to withdraw the summons and costs, caused through their negligence. I recently got summonsed by North East Lincolnshire Council when it was the council's error. I emailed them long before the summons was served to explain their error after receiving a reminder (wrongly). They eventually withdrew the summons and costs (27 days after first emailing), after being reported to 'Action Fraud'. I'll vouch for their incompetence if you want.
-
Leeds City Council – 12 January " In my original response I explained that whilst legislation (The Taking Control of Goods (fees) Regulations 2014) does cover the application of proceeds where payment is less than the full amount outstanding, we have agreed procedures with our enforcement agents that any funds are only transferred when the full amount has been collected. Therefore in response to your supplementary question I would expect the vast majority of any payments to comply with paragraph (a) and would expect a much smaller proportion to fall within paragraph (b). In all cases where we receive a direct payment and the case is with an enforcement agent we would advise the agent, and enforcement would continue against any remaining balance of Council Tax and fees .
-
Dudley Met Borough Council Council Tax Collection and Recovery Policy
-
From: outlawla To: "!enquiries" Sent: January 21, 2015 Subject: Re: IPCC ref. 2014/023292 Dear IPCC Further to my 19 December 2014 email, I still await Humberside Police to make contact regarding the appeal, as it stated it would on 27 August 2014. You have reiterated that the IPCC is unable to intervene in the appeals process as it is not the relevant appeal body for my complaint. I am aware that the IPCC's procedures are governed by statute and the law has been enacted to remove all rights of the taxpaying public in matters of complaint against the police. There is however a conflict in law with the governing body, funded by public money, turning a blind eye to corruption, merely on account of the law being written to allow it. The IPCC may consider compliance with the statutory complaints procedure is enough to avoid being legally challenged, but there is no avoiding the fact that in its knowledge, the public body is complicit in aiding Humberside Police to cover up corruption by looking the other way and blindly applying statute. The message being sent here is quite simply that it is acceptable for the public to be defrauded so long as it is on behalf of the government. As advised previously, I have been unsuccessful in resolving issues when previously contacting the Commissioner and Chief Constable. I believe doing so again would be futile and is why my communication is with the IPCC. The Police & Crime Commissioner is tasked with cutting the police's budget and to obsessively do so. The Chief Constable's role appears indistinguishable from that of the P&CC. The only noticeable difference is that one of them, the public can theoretically vote out and the other, it can't. It is therefore clearly not in the interest of either of them to act in a way that impacts negatively on the budget. Lastly, there has been no disclosure from your Freedom of Information team regarding the missing emails. I await any suggestions you have to resolve this situation. Your sincerely
-
If Harrow implements a discriminatory cost system between debtors who benefit from the Council Tax Support Scheme and those who don't (applying different levels of costs) they would be running the risk of legal challenge. Hull City Council's Cabinet took the decision last year to reduce some of the costs charged to those who default on their Council Tax if the outstanding debt is paid in full plus a proportion of the costs before the court hearing date (prior to the decision it applied £80 at the point of summons issue). Anyone who now receives a summons will have the £80 charge reduced by £50 if they pay the debt in full, plus £30 of the added costs before the court hearing date. Members of the council's Anti Poverty Panel raised the issue and the decision made after the report put forward a range of options regarding recovery costs. The recommended option (option 6) was implemented (as described above) after the council's legal team advised that it would be the option least exposing the council to legal challenge. This was balanced with the view that any lost income from costs would not impact too significantly on the surplus estimated to offset other budget pressures. All options which included a discriminatory cost system were rejected on recommendations by the Council's Monitoring Officer that the introduction of a scheme that charged lower costs to certain groups would not be lawful and could leave the Authority open to challenge. Paragraph 13.4 of the report: Paragraphs 6.5, 6.6 and 7.7 of the report: At paragraph 8.1 of the report, a high court case is cited: Further to the Regina v Highgate Justices ex parte Petrou case, Lord Goddard CJ said: " I regret that any bench of justices could have acted as these justices did. They were not imposing costs on the applicant; they were imposing a penalty on her when she had not been convicted of any offence, but had only come before the court to show cause why the premises should not be struck off the register. Under the guise of making an order for costs, the justices inflicted a penalty of [..100], which could only have been intended as a penalty. Since, by their order against [the manager], they had satisfied the costs of the prosecution apart from one guinea certiorari will go ...
-
Harrow Borough Council, page 35 of a report from its 'Overview and Scrutiny Committee' (Council Tax Support (CTS) Scheme). Says it all really. EDIT: The only thing I would add is that what it actually meant by defraying other Council costs to the general fund, is that it will be the defendants who do actually have to pay the costs who will subsidise them.
-
If that cost is specifically included in the summons / liability order cost recharged to debtors then it would (in theory) be breaking the law. Ultimately the regulations only provide for "a sum of an amount equal to the costs reasonably incurred by the applicant in obtaining the order", however in practice, administration costs post liability order are included in the court costs along with the tea & biscuit and CEO's pension fund.
-
Thanks for providing the alternative route to the case. There are some more admissions. Court costs seem to be a good source of income for subsidising other budgets at Haringey. Page 15 item 2 The following report more seriously admits that the council saved, rather than used funding given it by the government to pay council tax benefit claimants. Page 5
-
I don't exactly know what Haringey Borough Council are up to but I found something that may benefit from an accountant taking a look. What the quote below seems to be saying (second to last sub-paragraph to 5.10) is that it budgets for a surplus of income from court costs to be used to prop up other council expenditure (Customer Services). There are similarities between the case below and how councils use income generated from court costs to prop up other administration. Attfield, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Barnet [2013] EWHC 2089 (Admin) (22 July 2013) Above link needs substituting an 'A' for the 'a' in admin (Admin)
-
Fees Paid Direct to Court
outlawla replied to Coughdrop's topic in Bailiffs and Enforcement Industry - General discussions
The most guilty of this are public bodies such as local authorities, police forces and courts etc. -
Information has been found that points to a calculation analysed earlier in this thread (Great Yarmouth) deriving from Haringey Borough council's. It can be pretty much concluded that the spread sheet is based on a template which has been used for a number of councils. It has purposely been devised so that it can easily be tweaked to return the round about sum it needs to support its incurred expenditure to the Magistrates court. Two London Boroughs (Croydon and Enfield) have both made these available to the public. On the off-chance it was looked into whether the source of the spread sheet could be determined by looking into the properties of the file (when it was created, the author etc.). Under the summary tab, against 'Company:', the name entered into the box is 'London Borough of Haringey'. The significance is that Haringey has more likely than not produced a calculation using the same template / format. It is also interesting that the properties also give clues as to when the spread sheet (file) was created (4 March 2010). All this should be borne in mind as the template, although being far from transparent, is more comprehensively detailed than Haringey's breakdown which it has made publicly available (see this link). To put the above into context, an article published in the Haringey Independent on August 2, 2013 reporting on the council tax liability order hearing relevant to this thread quoted that "the council representative explained the £125 sum was agreed between the court and the council in March 2010 and is consistent with other London Boroughs." The ministry of justice was subsequently asked to supply all recorded information, i.e. calculations etc., supporting the council's £125 claim for costs (summons costs) which satisfied the Magistrates' court, that the expenditure had in fact been incurred by the council in respect of instituting the complaint and which would include details "agreed between the court and the council in March 2010" The MoJ flatly denied there being any such breakdown or agreement and reinforced this by stating that the information was not held by the MoJ because there is no legal or business requirement for the MoJ to do so. This continued with Haringey stating it had provided details and the MoJ maintaining it held no records until Haringey eventually produced the emails it sent to the court and by all accounts the breakdown was the one contained in this correspondence (see a previous link) which is based loosely on the template. Evidently it is a watered down version of the one produced by Yarmouth Borough Council but will no doubt have derived from a more comprehensive calculation which is kept from being made public.
-
North East Lincolnshire Council highly dodgily manipulated the summons costs of Business Rates to a level three times that for Council Tax some years ago, even though the processes for Liability Order applications are identical. It states at item 5 of this cabinet document: Wigan similarly legitimised its decision to circumvent the law by manipulating costs to use coercively, ironically submitting it in a letter to Wigan & Leigh Magistrates’ Court. In the case of Haringey Borough Council, it discovered raising court costs significantly would act as a deterrent and that other councils were doing it already. Page 36 of Haringey Council's 2004 Audit and Finance Scrutiny Panel Review of Income Collection details at paragraph 6.11, the relevant matter, as follows:
-
You have to ask why it is that another London Borough council (Croydon) applies £220 summons / liability order costs in Business Rates (NNDR) cases but £125 for Council Tax. The work involved is apparently the same so why in NNDR applications does it warrant an extra £76% of the Council Tax level. (Croydon Magistrates' Court's approval) There is a spread sheet for how the Council Tax costs (£125) have been calculated, which makes you wonder (if there is a breakdown) how the NNDR costs have been calculated. The only reasonable explanation is that the costs are influenced by "economies of scale". The number of NNDR cases are typically only a fraction of the number of Council Tax payers taken through the court system to obtain liability orders. Turning to Haringey and remembering that the costs are influenced by economies of scale, you come to the logical conclusion that if the number of summons issued in 2012/13 (before the benefit reforms were introduced) was 26,861 and post benefit reforms (in 2013/14) that number was 32,237, the standard £125 summons costs must have needed to be reduced to ensure the council were not profiting (assuming they were not profiting before).
Latest
Our Picks
Reclaim the right Ltd
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS