Reverend Paul Nicolson has local authorities really worried as he is "willfully refusing" to pay his council tax ! -WON

[outlawla]

Wow Outlawla that report on the 27th May 2010 is dynamite. Obviously if Councils can swap costs back and forth it makes a mockery of anything they may say as to the

accuracy/veracity of their figures. The front loading aspect is disgraceful too.

 

It would be interesting to see the other "Key Officer Decision" reports if there are any in relation to costs reviews other than the two already obtained.

 

The other one that Newham provided a link to was the report of 25 April 2012, and though not quite as incriminating as the other document, I'm still at a loss as to why they chose to release this but not the May 2010 minutes.

 

The Comments of the Finance Officer for instance:

 

From 10/11 benchmarking we issued 23,890 summonses but only obtained 11,222 liability orders. £10 increase would raise £112,220, however, we budget for only 50% recovery on costs so this would generate £56,110. This equates to the £50k for increases in admin charges, Regulation 36 committal summons costs plus £6K for additional expenses such as postage.

 

You will observe immediately that Newham "DOES NOT" state that it only recovers 50% of these costs, rather it budgets "for only 50% recovery".

 

Even if this is a realistic estimate, then using its 2010/11 figure of 23,890 summonses it would mean that roughly £36k for that year would have been paid to the MoJ in Magistrates' court fees (£3 per application) for costs which weren't recovered.

23,890 x £3 x 0.5 (50%)

Looking at it from another angle, the non-refundable fee of £3 which is payable by Newham to HMCTS for each application to the Magistrates' court has either been unenforceable or been waived and so is the Council Taxpayer who has borne the cost of funding a £36k transfer to another government department (the MoJ). Scale this up by however many local authorities there are and this stealth tax is considerable.

 

I suppose the Finance Officer was confident that nobody (or organisation) would ever scrutinise the report, otherwise he would not have stated there would be £6k additional expenses such as postage, when it was already stated that its Council Tax software (Northgate) would be set to issue fewer reminders before issuing a summons.

[outlawla]

.....Of huge significance is that once implemented, all Magistrate Court FINES will also now be subject to a separate charge to cover the costs to the court of running the court and administering the fine.........

 

I would have thought the cost of running the courts in England and Wales would be well covered with the the rubber stamping "conveyor belt style" applications.

 

See last post for example:

 

....Looking at it from another angle, the non-refundable fee of £3 which is payable by Newham to HMCTS for each application to the Magistrates' court has either been unenforceable or been waived and so is the Council Taxpayer who has borne the cost of funding a £36k transfer to another government department (the MoJ). Scale this up by however many local authorities there are and this stealth tax is considerable.....

 

A surprising response by Newham today by the way. It didn't mean to exempt the release of information. That response was sent in error.

[outlawla]

Great Yarmouth Borough Council's Public Consultation says it all:

 

Have your say on change

 

Section C – How could the borough council save money?

 

The questionnaire (last question on page) is asking the public how willing they would be for the council to increase 'summons costs' as a measure for saving money, or plugging a hole in its finances.

 

Ranging from Very willing to Not at all willing:

 

To increase the fees for court summons for people who have not paid their council tax - estimated extra income £26,000

[brassnecked]

Adding a veneer of consultation with the public using a dodgy survey cannot excuse the council.

[lookinforinfo]

Great Yarmouth Borough Council's Public Consultation says it all:

 

Have your say on change

 

Section C – How could the borough council save money?

 

The questionnaire (last question on page) is asking the public how willing they would be for the council to increase 'summons costs' as a measure for saving money, or plugging a hole in its finances.

 

Ranging from Very willing to Not at all willing:

 

Interesting. If the majority agreed to the increase and the Council complied, that should drop them straight in excrement since they are broadcasting the fact that they are

increasing the summons costs not because of an increase in dealings with the Court but to pay for shortfalls in the Council's business in general. This is totally unlawful and

epitomises many Councils' attitude to costing Court summons.

[outlawla]

Interesting. If the majority agreed to the increase and the Council complied, that should drop them straight in excrement since they are broadcasting the fact that they are

increasing the summons costs not because of an increase in dealings with the Court but to pay for shortfalls in the Council's business in general. This is totally unlawful and

epitomises many Councils' attitude to costing Court summons.

 

In complete agreement.

 

We already have one council that raised its cost on the strength of a ballot.....

 

Scroll down to the heading "Income Generation"

 

Budget Consultation-2011-12

[brassnecked]

In complete agreement.

 

We already have one council that raised its cost on the strength of a ballot.....

 

Scroll down to the heading "Income Generation"

 

Budget Consultation-2011-12

 

Unlawful but symptomatic of a possible Common Purpose infestation. They have potentially left themselves wide open, but sadly plod will do sweet FA most likely.

[outlawla]

Swindon Borough Council's Cabinet report at paragraph 3.4 (see below) appears to be blatantly admitting that the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations are not being complied with as the law makes it categorically clear that these costs are not to be levied for the purpose of running the Council Tax department.

"

3

.

4

When summonses are issued, the Council charges £60 costs to residents and a further £40 costs if it has to obtain a court order. These costs have been agreed with the Magistrates and are the same throughout Swindon and Wiltshire. In total, the Council received £700,000 of costs income in 2013/14 and this was used to offset part of the Capita cost of running the Council Tax service.

The Swindon Advertiser reports.

[brassnecked]

Swindon Borough Council's Cabinet report at paragraph 3.4 (see below) appears to be blatantly admitting that the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations are not being complied with as the law makes it categorically clear that these costs are not to be levied for the purpose of running the Council Tax department.

"

3

.

4

When summonses are issued, the Council charges £60 costs to residents and a further £40 costs if it has to obtain a court order. These costs have been agreed with the Magistrates and are the same throughout Swindon and Wiltshire. In total, the Council received £700,000 of costs income in 2013/14 and this was used to offset part of the

Capita

cost of running the Council Tax service.

The Swindon Advertiser reports.

 

Is this really lawful? I don't think so.

 

Is this per capita as in per head of population, or to offest the cost of the Capita infestation within the council?

[outlawla]

Is this really lawful? I don't think so.

 

Is this per capita as in per head of population, or to offest the cost of the Capita infestation within the council?

 

Glad you mentioned that. Just took a second look at the report and it states at paragraph 3.3:

 

"

3

.

3

In 2013/14, the Council Tax office issued 42,280 reminder notices, 14,024 summonses for non-payment and passed 7,200 debts to Enforcement Agents (bailiffs). The Council’s strategic partner, Capita, runs the Council Tax service, and incurs a considerable amount of cost in issuing these notices and in referring debts to Enforcement Agents. These costs are passed to the Council as part of the contract cost of running the service

.

 

By admitting that costs incurred for referring debts to the bailiffs is attributed to the court costs, it has implied it has no understanding of the relevant law which only allows expenditure to be imposed up until the point that the Liability Order is obtained from the Magistrates' court.

[brassnecked]

Glad you mentioned that. Just took a second look at the report and it states at paragraph 3.3:

"

3

.

3

In 2013/14, the Council Tax office issued 42,280 reminder notices, 14,024 summonses for non-payment and passed 7,200 debts to Enforcement Agents (bailiffs). The Council’s strategic partner, Capita, runs the Council Tax service, and incurs a considerable amount of cost in issuing these notices and in referring debts to Enforcement Agents. These costs are passed to the Council as part of the contract cost of running the service

.

 

By admitting that costs incurred for referring debts to the bailiffs is attributed to the court costs, it has implied it has no understanding of the relevant law which only allows expenditure to be imposed up until the point that the Liability Order is obtained from the Magistrates' court.

 

 

Capita PLC, are also noted for giving councils advice which was unlawful regarding syphoning Housing Revenue Account funds to other purposes.

 

"The Audit Commission has accused Medway Council of ignoring the advice of its external auditors by shifting £2 million from a ‘ring-fenced’ housing budget to its general fund.

 

The Kent authority’s chief executive employed ‘special urgency’ powers in September to raid its housing revenue account, council papers from last month reveal.

Such powers allow senior officials to make urgent decisions which are approved later by councillors.

The £2 million raid makes Medway the fifth council to sanction such controversial transfers on the advice of consultancy Capita. The Communities and Local Government department is probing the ‘appropriateness’ of the move. In total, £37.5 million is now known to have been taken from council housing budgets during September before the legal ‘loophole’ pinpointed by Capita was sealed by the government on 1 October."

 

 

from: http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/medway-takes-2m-from-hra/6529298.article

 

AND:

 

"Government launches investigation as three councils transfer housing revenue account cash into their general funds

 

The government has launched an investigation into a spate of multi-million pound cash transfers in which councils have raided their rent accounts to prop up their ailing general funds.

At least three authorities called urgent meetings last month to sign off shifting sums totalling £34.5 million out of their housing revenue accounts, papers seen by Inside Housing reveal.

Councillors in Manchester, Oxford and Dover rubber-stamped the transfers on the recommendation of officers and following advice from consultancy Capita. The firm informed its clients during September about a legal loophole in the Local Government Act and Housing 1989 that allowed councils to take money out of their HRA accounts. The loophole was officially closed on 1 October."

 

 

from: http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/exposed-councils-35m-raid-on-rents/6528984.article

 

 

Capita should be investigated and closed down for the public good.

[outlawla]

.....Capita should be investigated and closed down for the public good.

 

The problem is how many of our public servants who are benefiting from this theft from the taxpayer are going out of their way to defend them?

 

EDIT:

 

There is an assortment of words including table, brown, under, envelope, hander, back etc., etc. you could chose from to answer this I suppose.

[brassnecked]

The problem is how many of our public servants who are benefiting from this theft from the taxpayer are going out of their way to defend them?

 

EDIT:

 

There is an assortment of words including table, brown, under, envelope, hander, back etc., etc. you could chose from to answer this I suppose.

The problem with Capita is that they are so entrenched into provision of State Services, and housing management software, consultancy and back office provision that to all intents and purposes in many cases they are the council, or government.

[outlawla]

Enlightening response regarding Manchester City Council's revenue stream from Court costs:

 

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/213496/response/548342/attach/4/Tom%20Bola%20attachment.pdf

 

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/213496/response/548342/attach/3/Tom%20Bola%20attachments.pdf

[brassnecked]

Enlightening response regarding Manchester City Council's revenue stream from Court costs:

 

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/213496/response/548342/attach/4/Tom%20Bola%20attachment.pdf

 

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/213496/response/548342/attach/3/Tom%20Bola%20attachments.pdf

 

They really don't see any wrong in what they are doing, now a couple of felt collars would do thesae council officials the world of good.

[outlawla]

They really don't see any wrong in what they are doing, now a couple of felt collars would do thesae council officials the world of good.

 

Don't know if this is a figment of my imagination or I'm misunderstanding something.

 

From the same FoI requst

 

"

I would point out that costs were not specifically for obtaining a liability order, they were simply added to the customers account when the order was obtained. In response to your request, I have included as attachments:

 

 

[brassnecked]

Don't know if this is a figment of my imagination or I'm misunderstanding something.

 

From the same FoI requst

 

"

I would point out that costs were not specifically for obtaining a liability order, they were simply added to the customers account when the order was obtained. In response to your request, I have included as attachments:

 

 

 

They are digging themselves a rather large hole.

[outlawla]

Up to 40% of council tax levied on low-income households unpaid (The Guardian)

 

In Haringey, north London, which collected 80% of the council tax due from benefit claimants, hundreds of households have been taken to court to recover unpaid tax – with non-payers threatened with bankruptcy, repossession and ultimately prison.....

 

....Dick said he had offered to pay £3 a week towards council tax after working out his finances with the local Citizens Advice bureau, but the local authority did not respond to his offer. Instead the council has asked for the full year's council tax to be paid immediately – £350 – plus the cost of recovering his unpaid tax through a liability order of £125....."

 

[brassnecked]

Up to 40% of council tax levied on low-income households unpaid (The Guardian)

 

 

Well what did they expect when they tinkered with Council Tax benefit? Liability Orders and bailiffs will make the problem much much worse.

[outlawla]

Well what did they expect when they tinkered with Council Tax benefit? Liability Orders and bailiffs will make the problem much much worse.

 

It's quite shocking that millions of pounds of taxpayer's money will have been spent on the salaries of professionals to do the necessary research in establishing how much is the minimum amount necessary for someone to get by frugally, and then ignore all that by introducing the reforms which effectively takes their benefits below that level.

[outlawla]

I think it appropriate that a link to this story (Report exposes impact of tax hikes on London poor) should be posted on this thread.

 

Interestingly, the report (here) linked to in the article (page 18) reveals Haringey, after Lambeth and Lewisham to have made the most out of London Borough Council Tax support claimants with court summons costs (£716,500) in 2013/14.

[brassnecked]

I think it appropriate that a link to this story (Report exposes impact of tax hikes on London poor) should be posted on this thread.

 

Interestingly, the report (here) linked to in the article (page 18) reveals Haringey, after Lambeth and Lewisham to have made the most out of London Borough Council Tax support claimants with court summons costs (£716,500) in 2013/14.

 

This shows the intrinsic rightness of the Reverend's fight.

[outlawla]

This shows the intrinsic rightness of the Reverend's fight.

 

Without any doubt it does, but that has never got in the way of the justice system doing whatever is wrong in the name of tax collection.

[Coughdrop]

It's quite shocking that millions of pounds of taxpayer's money will have been spent on the salaries of professionals to do the necessary research in establishing how much is the minimum amount necessary for someone to get by frugally, and then ignore all that by introducing the reforms which effectively takes their benefits below that level.

 

Not really shocking sadly - it is called politics. Let's reduce benefits, but there'll be an uproar if we just do it, so we must do it in a roundabout way.

 

Shades of 'Yes Minister!'

 

All politicians I have ever heard talk about that programme say how much truth there was in it.

[brassnecked]

Not really shocking sadly - it is called politics. Let's reduce benefits, but there'll be an uproar if we just do it, so we must do it in a roundabout way.

 

Shades of 'Yes Minister!'

 

All politicians I have ever heard talk about that programme say how much truth there was in it.

It was too close to the truth for some politicians and the Civil Serpents.