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

[brassnecked]

Latest developments....

 

TOTTENHAM MAGISTRATES ASLEEP ON THE JOB – hearing at Royal Courts of Justice on 7th October 2014......

 

EDIT:

 

The two documents provided as links in the article (docx), witness statement and Skeleton argument need some attention!!!

 

They will do their best to find against him and then the council will try to get him jailed as an example that they are God.

 

Those skeleton argumernts must be boilerplate, and unquestionable.

 

Hopefully though, in the light of all the evidence stacked against the council he will win.

[Bailiff Advice]

Latest developments....

 

TOTTENHAM MAGISTRATES ASLEEP ON THE JOB – hearing at Royal Courts of Justice on 7th October 2014......

 

EDIT:

 

I actually have a meeting a short walk away on that same morning as otherwise I would go to the court. I will not have any time free until later today to read the Statements. If you have detected any errors are you in contact with the Reverend to advise him? He is so grateful for any assistance.

 

The two documents provided as links in the article (docx), witness statement and Skeleton argument need some attention!!!

[outlawla]

I actually have a meeting a short walk away on that same morning as otherwise I would go to the court. I will not have any time free until later today to read the Statements. If you have detected any errors are you in contact with the Reverend to advise him? He is so grateful for any assistance.

 

The two documents provided as links in the article (docx), witness statement and Skeleton argument need some attention!!!

 

What I meant was I can't read the documents. They possibly need attention and uploading to the Reverend's website again.

 

...Those skeleton argumernts must be boilerplate, and unquestionable....

 

Are you able to read them? If so I have a problem with my PC.

[brassnecked]

What I meant was I can't read the documents. They possibly need attention and uploading to the Reverend's website again.

 

I opened them just fine in Libre Office and they look pretty damning for the council. I could convert them to Word 97 .doc and email them, as that format is opened in most things, there are issues with some Word .docx

[Bailiff Advice]

What I meant was I can't read the documents. They possibly need attention and uploading to the Reverend's website again.

 

I have just opened both on my computer (which is an Apple MacBok). I will be leaving for work in a moment and will see if I have any trouble on the Dell computers in the office. If I have the same problem as you I will send a text message to the Reverend and get copies sent over.

[outlawla]

I opened them just fine in Libre Office and they look pretty damning for the council. I could convert them to Word 97 .doc and email them, as that format is opened in most things, there are issues with some Word .docx

 

I'd appreciate that, thanks.

[brassnecked]

I'd appreciate that, thanks.

 

PM me your email please

[outlawla]

PM me your email please

 

OK, done!

[Bailiff Advice]

I have just started reading both and the arguments seem very impressive indeed. However outlawla has significant experience of the subject matter and I would be interested to know his views.

[outlawla]

I have just started reading both and the arguments seem very impressive indeed. However outlawla has significant experience of the subject matter and I would be interested to know his views.

 

It's interesting to see how the legal professionals present the issues in the skeleton argument. The Reverend's witness statement seems to have all angles relevant to the appeal covered.

 

In my opinion one of the most compelling arguments for which a case IS MADE surrounds the consolidation of the entire costs of the council tax liability order hearing (and the rest) which are claimed merely for issuing the summons. Councils are obviously making more money this way because those defendants paying before the case is heard (including costs) are still paying costs in respect of their cases proceeding to court (an expense the authority does not incur).

 

Many councils have picked up on this and similarly inflated their summons costs, and over time shifted all the so called liability order costs to what councils claim to be incurred in respect of issuing the summons.

 

A sample or two to demonstrate:

 

Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council in 1997/98 applied costs only if they obtained a liability order (there were no Summons costs). By the following year, costs remained at the same level but were recharged to residents in respect of issuing the summons. This billing authority saw the financial benefits of ignoring the law before most and could be thought of as pioneers. Leicester City Council did the same (though also increasing the sum) as did Milton Keynes.

 

In 1999/00, Luton Borough Council similarly had no summons costs with the total charged to obtaining a Liability Order. Its switch to completely front loading the costs was more gradual with it roughly charging half for the summons and the other 50% for obtaining a Liability Order until 2007/08 when the costs were completely front loaded.

 

North East Lincolnshire Council in 1998/99 had no summons costs but by 2004 the ratio of the costs were around 50:50. It wasn't until 2011 that the regulations were being completely laughed at.

 

Before its 2011 budget, costs were applied in accordance with the regulations; initially at a lesser sum than the total in respect of the summons and a further sum on being granted the liability order. In reviewing its policy, involving raising the overall costs as well as front loading them, the cost with respect to instituting the summons saw an overnight hike of 120%.

 

The council’s decision to no longer carry out the procedure in accordance with law was a budgetary measure that intended to raise an additional three quarters of a million pounds (£752,000) in costs income over a four year period. This was the preferred measure – in response to public consultation – over alternative proposals to introduce a charge for replacement bins or garden waste collections.

 

Haringey has done similar which is clearly outlined in the court papers.

 

In the Reverend's witness statement (Paragraph 12) there's an observation which raises a valid concern which is why "the same magistrates in the same court building allow Enfield Council (the next door local authority) seeking to enforce the same liabilities to charge only £70 for a summons, and to add a further £25 if it is necessary for them to go on to seek a liability order".

 

Looking at archives of the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy's revenue statistics reveals there has not always been this disparity.

 

In 2001/02 for example both Haringey and Enfield both (within a penny or two) had the same standard costs which were £30 for the summons and £10 for the liability order.

[Bailiff Advice]

I have read through both statements twice and I am very impressed indeed.

 

There is a significant problem that the Reverend is aware of. If the court rule in his favour the decision could 'open the floodgate's for claims.

 

One way or another I am sure that this application (and indeed your own sterling research in this area) will shortly lead to the government bringing in legislation to cap the fees in the same manner that has happened in Wales.

[EWHC1362]

In the Reverend's witness statement (Paragraph 12) there's an observation which raises a valid concern which is why "the same magistrates in the same court building allow Enfield Council (the next door local authority) seeking to enforce the same liabilities to charge only £70 for a summons, and to add a further £25 if it is necessary for them to go on to seek a liability order".

 

Looking at archives of the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy's revenue statistics reveals there has not always been this disparity.

 

In 2001/02 for example both Haringey and Enfield both (within a penny or two) had the same standard costs which were £30 for the summons and £10 for the liability order.

 

It's a valid point. A judge would probably want to know why the Magistrates didn't smell a rat when both authorities claimed identical costs for both summons and liability order, but now Haringey asks for (and is awarded) £55 more summons than Enfield.

 

Figures would need supporting though so can these statistics be obtained?

[outlawla]

....Figures would need supporting though so can these statistics be obtained?

 

CIPFA 2001/02

 

Spreadsheet cells for Enfield (X,40 and Y,40).

 

For Haringey cells (X,41 and Y,41).

[mikeymack2002]

Will this be worth reading in full? http://www.taxpayersagainstpoverty.org.uk/2014/09/

[Bailiff Advice]

 

TOTTENHAM MAGISTRATES: Hearing at Royal Courts of Justice on 7th October 2014......

 

EDIT:

 

I actually have a meeting a short walk away on that same morning as otherwise I would go to the court.

 

UPDATE:

 

I have just this minute received a call on my mobile from a DELIGHTED Reverend Paul Nicolson to let me know that he WON his application at the Royal Courts of Justice a short while ago and has been granted permission for a Judicial Review !!!

 

The Court was absolutely packed with supporters.

 

The Reverend discussed a fair amount of other aspects of the case with me but he has asked that I report nothing further until I receive a copy of a report from his Barrister; Helen Mountfield (which hopefully will be in the next day or so).

[mikeymack2002]

Great news so the fight continues then good luck to him

[brassnecked]

Ecxellent news, let's hope the JR exposes the dark underbelly of Council enforcement, and their illicit attempts to garner back door dodgy revenue.

[Bailiff Advice]

There will be a lot more detail later but in the meantime the Reverend has given his permission for me to state the following:

 

At his Liability Order hearing on 2nd August 2014 he asked the Magistrate how Haringey Council had calculated their 'costs' of £125 and what evidence had been provided to Tottenham Magistrates Court when seeking their permission to charge this fee to debtors.

 

Tottenham Magistrates have refused to provide any details at all merely stating that the question was 'academic and frivolous'.

 

Haringey Councils stated that the request was 'vexatious'.

 

The Judge at the Royal Courts of Justice ordered them to answer the question in detail.......and more !!!

 

Details of the Judgment will follow shortly.

[outlawla]

Excellent result.

 

The London press reports with a couple of articles:

 

Vicar emerges triumphant after court hearing

 

Vigil held outside High Court for retired vicar

[Bailiff Advice]

Thank you outlawla.

 

This is a subject that you have done a huge amount of work regarding. I have little doubt that from today local authorities and magistrate courts will start ensuring that evidence is provided to demonstrate whether the amount charge is correct. I heard this morning that one local authority has already REDUCED the amount being charged by them when obtaining a Liability Order.

[caro]

Excellent news. Well done to all involved, and especially Rev Nicolson for having the courage to take on the establishment.

[Sweetlaw]

This is indeed superb news. What a blessing we have people like the esteemed vicar to fight these battles which us lesser mortals would never take on. He not only deserves this victory, but victory in his cause.

Edited October 7, 2014 by Sweetlaw
typo

[havinastella]

This is superb news. Unfortunately, as in Bank charges, we know the Government/LA cannot afford to lose this, so a hope the Rev takes a a well earned holiday and disappears for a few months and not for good.

[outlawla]

Turning up the pressure.....

 

Haringey council urged not to seek costs for CT summons/liability orders until legality and rationality reviewed

[brassnecked]

Turning up the pressure.....

 

Haringey council urged not to seek costs for CT summons/liability orders until legality and rationality reviewed

Haringey will do their best to get him committed to prison ASAP after that, in their derams.