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

[citizenB]

Thanks for this TT

[outlawla]

......The Tax Payers Against Poverty website should be updated by midday with more details.

 

Yesterday's update post:

 

£125 COSTS NO MINOR ISSUE WHEN AUTHORISED +22,000 TIMES BY TOTTENHAM MAGISTRATES 2013/14,

 

raises an interesting issue regarding the court pointing out that the costs are council's rather than the court's.

 

The costs are the same £125 this year as last year, so I suggested to the Tottenham Magistrates yesterday that there should be adjournment until we all know whether that £125 is justified. The chair of the bench said they were council costs not court costs. I replied that the council is authorised to enforce the costs by the magistrates; a point accepted by the chair.

 

It seems the racket between HMCTS and Local Authorities has been going on that long that neither the MoJ nor councils see it as anything other than a tax on the poor.

 

There is conflicting information where one source will say that the Magistrates' court has discretion in the level of costs it awards (if any) whilst another will say if the person is found liable the bench has no discretion.

 

A recent response from Leicester City Council where it discloses details of its latest approval from the Justices' Clerk (10 March 2014) clearly shows that the costs may be challenged by individuals exercising their right to appear before the bench:

 

Dear Mr T

 

I am pleased to say that I have now heard from the Chairman who is happy to approve your costs. Of course it will be open to those against whom you proceed to challenge the application in individual cases.

 

I apologise for the delay.

 

Best wishes

 

Justices' Clerk and Secretary to the Lord Chancellor's Advisory Committees for Leicestershire & Rutland, Lincolnshire and Northamptonshire

[tomtubby]

Thank you Outlawla.

 

I have just received a text message from the Reverend. He is so grateful for the astonishing support that he is receiving and delighted that over 10,000 people have viewed his thread.

 

He will shortly be in receipt of some vitally important documents from me that demonstrate HOW the costs were initially agreed for the London area.

[outlawla]

....He will shortly be in receipt of some vitally important documents from me that demonstrate HOW the costs were initially agreed for the London area.

 

Coincidentally, in reference to the agreed costs for the London area, this seems to be a get-out-of-jail-free card for London Borough Councils to avoid disclosing information regarding their make-up.

 

For example, Harrow Borough Council were asked to disclose information relating to each of its 8 summons and liability order costs reviews. For each review it stated that "no data exists" (its documented response), and went on to explain that:

 

No data exists as costs amounts adopted followed London-wide negotiations with the Chief Clerk for London Magistrates Court, which Harrow simply adopted.

 

 

Haringey Borough Council was similarly evasive when confronted with similar questions, but where Harrow simply stated that it held no data, Haringey exploited the fact that the records, being more than six years old, would be no longer held.

 

Haringey's response...

 

Courts costs for the years up to 2007/08 were agreed by the London Legal Forum which was made up of representatives from The London Revenues Group (on behalf of London Boroughs) and Court Clerks from some of the Magistrates Courts within the London Area. The costs agreed by the forum were generally adopted by all London Boroughs. As more than six years have passed the records for those levels of costs are no longer held. The decision to change the ratio of the costs, with 100% being charged at the summons stage, would have been made prior to 1 April 2008 which again is more than six years old and documentation is no longer held.

[wobbly]

From what do the know,

rom: Tilbury Roy

Sent: 04 March 2010 14:06

To:

Cc: '[email protected]'

Subject: Haringey - Council Tax Court Costs 2010/11

 

Hi Stephen

 

Please find attached breakdown of the service charges in respect of Council Tax Court Costs. I am looking to increase Court Costs from £95.00 to £125.00. Whilst this was meant to be done for 2009/10, Haringey felt that the increase was not appropriate.

 

You will see from the figures that the actual cost is more than the £125.00 requested.

 

I would like to increase this from the 1st April 2010 and await your approval.

 

Kind Regards

 

Roy Tilbury

NNDR & Enforcement Manager

02084891302

So they produced figures were are they.Good luck Rev

[outlawla]

From what do the know,

rom: Tilbury Roy

Sent: 04 March 2010 14:06

To:

Cc: '[email protected]'

Subject: Haringey - Council Tax Court Costs 2010/11

 

Hi Stephen

 

Please find attached breakdown of the service charges in respect of Council Tax Court Costs. I am looking to increase Court Costs from £95.00 to £125.00. Whilst this was meant to be done for 2009/10, Haringey felt that the increase was not appropriate.

 

You will see from the figures that the actual cost is more than the £125.00 requested.

 

I would like to increase this from the 1st April 2010 and await your approval.

 

Kind Regards

 

Roy Tilbury

NNDR & Enforcement Manager

02084891302

So they produced figures were are they.Good luck Rev

 

This FoI request (Here) should have the figures somewhere as an attachment in one of the correspondences. Note there are two calculations (it claimed to have submitted the first incorrectly).

 

If the figures aren't there, this is a direct link to the second set:

 

Court Costs 2010/11

[caro]

The overheads look disproportionately large. Would be interesting to know exactly what these comprise and the allocation calculation.

[outlawla]

The overheads look disproportionately large. Would be interesting to know exactly what these comprise and the allocation calculation.

 

It's obviously a reverse calculation. The desired level of costs have been chosen and a series of budgets allocated sums which when aggregated miraculously add up to £125.

 

Even if the inflated expenditure was genuinely attributable to recovery work, it would be attributable to all costs rather than just issuing summonses. Haringey do not break-up costs between summons issue and the court hearing (as the law provides) and so people incurring summons costs automatically incur liability order costs that have been front loaded for the purposes of earning more revenue for Haringey.

 

The approach taken with many councils is when averaging the costs, they divide the supposed expenditure incurred by the number of summonses. However, the number of summonses is not the number of summonses it issues but the much lower number it estimates to recover (70% would be typical). Obviously this average is then a much higher level of costs which can be presented on a calculation to bamboozle Magistrates. The net effect of that is people who do pay these costs are subsidising those who don't as well as in the case of Haringey, incurring front loaded expenditure. Those who make payment arrangements or agree in future to pay by Direct Debit are likely to make up a large number of the summons costs that are uncollected.

[outlawla]

The Haringey Advertiser

 

Vicar continues anti-council tax crusade

[lookinforinfo]

Outlawla I while I was looking for something else I came across this on a Department for Communities and Local Government pamphlet relating to Council Tax -Guidance on Enforcement of CT arrears June 2013

3.4 Local Authorities are reminded that they are only permitted to charge reasonable

costs for the court summons and liability order. In the interests of transparency, Local

Authorities should be able to provide a breakdown, on request, showing how these

costs are calculated. While it is likely that authorities will have discussed costs with

the Clerk to Justices it should be recognised that the Court may wish to be satisfied

that the amount claimed by way of costs in any individual case is no more than that

reasonably incurred by the authority.

 

Where LAs are reluctant to provide such details a letter to them advising them of this Government paper and notification that they will be reported to that Department might

be enough to force the LA into action.

[ploddertom]

Off topic slightly - has a "fighting" fund been started to help in this matter? If so where?

[brassnecked]

Outlawla I while I was looking for something else I came across this on a Department for Communities and Local Government pamphlet relating to Council Tax -Guidance on Enforcement of CT arrears June 2013

3.4 Local Authorities are reminded that they are only permitted to charge reasonable

costs for the court summons and liability order. In the interests of transparency, Local

Authorities should be able to provide a breakdown, on request, showing how these

costs are calculated. While it is likely that authorities will have discussed costs with

the Clerk to Justices it should be recognised that the Court may wish to be satisfied

that the amount claimed by way of costs in any individual case is no more than that

reasonably incurred by the authority.

 

Where LAs are reluctant to provide such details a letter to them advising them of this Government paper and notification that they will be reported to that Department might

be enough to force the LA into action.

 

Or in the case of councils who charge £100 or more, they will resist any attempt to make them disclose this, as they don't want their little extra revenue raiser spoiled, as Rev Nicolson is trying to do.

[outlawla]

....Where LAs are reluctant to provide such details a letter to them advising them of this Government paper and notification that they will be reported to that Department might

be enough to force the LA into action.

 

You would have thought it an open and shut case, but councils still manage to worm their way out of it as they state that there is no legal obligation to support their cost because the "Guidance on Enforcement of CT arrears" is only "Guidance".

 

Paragraph 4(ii) of the QC's Final decision to dismiss an appeal in the Information Rights Tribunal shows the level of support councils are given for them to get away with such robbery. There is a right to appeal the decision on a point of law but requires permission from the Judge. I doubt though, even if leave is granted, an appeal will be successful against a system that favours the establishment.

[tomtubby]

 

The overheads look disproportionately large. Would be interesting to know exactly what these comprise and the allocation calculation.

 

 

Interesting indeed !!! The FACT of the matter is that local authorities will NOT divulge this information and the main reason WHY is because they do NOT know.

[caro]

Interesting indeed !!! The FACT of the matter is that local authorities will NOT divulge this information and the main reason WHY is because they do NOT know.

 

You think? I'd be very surprised if that is the case. I work in a department that compiles management accounts for a pretty large organisation and overheads are calculated and budgeted for as carefully as all other income and expenditure. The calculations are complex but, as with LAs, we are accountable.

 

They have to be audited. There's nothing random or unknown about where the money goes, or indeed, comes from.

[tomtubby]

Caro,

 

Your answer is so accurate. The correct route (as far as I am concerned) is that complaints about the unaccountability of the 'summons cost' should be for the matter to be referred to the District Auditor. All local authorities have to make their accounts available for inspection.

 

Complaints are currently ongoing.

[brassnecked]

Problem is TT some councils accounts are a mess like those of the EU, but as Caro has said, everything has to be accounted for somewhere. I wonder how many councils have used advice from Capita in setting their summons costs as a revenue source? That is a relevant question as Capita advised some councils , wrongly, as it happens, that they co;ld syphon Housing Revenue Account funds elsewhere.

[outlawla]

You think? I'd be very surprised if that is the case. I work in a department that compiles management accounts for a pretty large organisation and overheads are calculated and budgeted for as carefully as all other income and expenditure. The calculations are complex but, as with LAs, we are accountable.

 

They have to be audited. There's nothing random or unknown about where the money goes, or indeed, comes from.

 

Leicester City Council produce accounts to support its costs on a three year basis. It's surprising they don't include the Tea & Biscuit fund (although probably do incognito). There are far too many questionable figures to mention here, but one which gives the game away is where they include Officer's hourly rate, twice (presumably hoping nobody notices), shown around cell (H7) of the spreadsheet.

 

2011-12 calculation

 

Here they calculate the hourly rate at £13.94 (including 25% employment cost) then justify doubling that figure to £27.88 because they consider the cost of employing staff to cover for the non-recovery work while staff are dealing with recovery work to be fair game, cell (H11).

 

They even account for (A73) the interest lost for instalments not paid within one month. This would be more acceptable if they also included the interest gained through the early payment they receive for withdrawing instalments and demanding the remaining outstanding balance as a lump sum.

 

Their latest accounts: 2013-14 calculation

[tomtubby]

These figures make no sense at all !!

 

The starting point needs to be with HOW MANY staff are employed in the Recovery dept. Is there any way in which you can find out this figure for me.

[SabreSheep]

FOI request?

[outlawla]

The council will simply state that no employees dedicate their time solely to dealing with applications for liability orders.

[caro]

Leicester City Council produce accounts to support its costs on a three year basis. It's surprising they don't include the Tea & Biscuit fund (although probably do incognito). There are far too many questionable figures to mention here, but one which gives the game away is where they include Officer's hourly rate, twice (presumably hoping nobody notices), shown around cell (H7) of the spreadsheet.

 

2011-12 calculation

 

Here they calculate the hourly rate at £13.94 (including 25% employment cost) then justify doubling that figure to £27.88 because they consider the cost of employing staff to cover for the non-recovery work while staff are dealing with recovery work to be fair game, cell (H11).

 

They even account for (A73) the interest lost for instalments not paid within one month. This would be more acceptable if they also included the interest gained through the early payment they receive for withdrawing instalments and demanding the remaining outstanding balance as a lump sum.

 

Their latest accounts: 2013-14 calculation

 

25% employment costs is pretty standard but surely they employ people to do this on a permanent basis, so doubling up is bang out of order!

 

Thanks for the links. I'm not an accountant but will see if I can see anything else, but can't do it now.

[tomtubby]

The council will simply state that no employees dedicate their time solely to dealing with applications for liability orders.

 

I have passed the FOI requests to a very experienced auditor with a great deal of understanding of local authority costings. I will respond as soon as he comes back to me.

[caro]

The council will simply state that no employees dedicate their time solely to dealing with applications for liability orders.

 

Maybe not solely, but it sure as hell will be on some job descriptions. It's not like this is something new that hasn't been done for years.

[outlawla]

There is scope ("this calculation") to remove expenditure of reminder notices etc., at A12 and A22, because they are not summons notices. That would take off a total £67,053.56.

£47,565.38 (A12)

 

£19,488.18 (A22)

Of course the council would argue that the reminder notices are connected with summons costs, so as a contingency we can asses the costs of only those reminder/final notices which relate to accounts subsequently summonsed.

 

Cell A33 assumes there are 15,000 cases relating to summonses. It is therefore safe to assume that only 15,000 of the 55,000 first reminder notices (A12) can be connected with summonsed accounts – around 27.3%.

27.3% of £47,565 = £12,972

 

£47,565 – £12,972 = £34,593

At least £34,593 of its expenditure related to the 1st reminder can not possibly be included in its costs.

 

 

It is not possible to use the same logic as above to determine how many of the 2nd reminder/final notices can be excluded, i.e. which relate to accounts not subsequently summonsed. The reason is because not all accounts summonsed first receive a 2nd reminder or a final notice whereas all accounts summonsed must first receive a 1st reminder.

 

We can therefore only assume (reasonably) that some of the £19,488 expenditure attributed to the 2nd reminder/final notices should not be included because many account holders (to which these relate) either catch up the arrears at this point or where it is a final notice, pay the entire remaining sum within the given notice.