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

[outlawla]

Update – 127 cases adjourned in folkstone

[mikeymack2002]

Dumb question time but here goes...

 

 

With this case will this then allow a defendant to appeal their cases due to the cost of the summons?

 

 

If so this could get very messy indeed

 

 

Its just a thought here

[outlawla]

...With this case will this then allow a defendant to appeal their cases due to the cost of the summons?

 

If you mean "to appeal their cases" you mean contest the reasonableness of the costs at the liability order hearing, then any defendant can do this already.

[mikeymack2002]

I was thinking of unfair "charges" so to speak

[outlawla]

I was thinking of unfair "charges" so to speak

 

Cornwall Council has recently confirmed this....

 

Imposing....costs

"

I can also advise you that the ratepayer has the right to challenge the sum payable on the summons including the costs at the liability order

.

[Bailiff Advice]

Update – 127 cases adjourned in folkstone

 

Excellent news and I feel sure that in the coming weeks we will be hearing of more local authorities and courts doing the same.

[outlawla]

Remember Leicester City council being found misrepresenting its expenditure by doubling the number of staff hours attributable to recovery work in order to justify its court costs.

 

When questioned about this it replied:

 

"

We have a fixed number of staff for billing and processing work and whilst they engage in recovery tasks that “

gap

” has to be filled. This has to be an additional cost attributed to recovery as staff duties have transferred from their normal work

.

 

Then, on 10 September 2014, further arguments were put forward as to why Leicester City Council's accounting system was not a proper way of calculating the level of costs.

 

In it's latest defence the finger is pointed at the Magistrates' Court

"

We still believe that our approach in calculating the costs level is correct. As you are aware the costs amount has also been agreed by Court

.

[citizenB]

Only a politician could come up with an excuse like that ?

[outlawla]

HARINGEY COUNCIL LOSES TO LOCAL CAMPAIGNERS IN SUPREME COURT BATTLE ABOUT 2012 COUNCIL TAX CONSULTATION

 

The Judgment below:

 

Judgment 29 October 2014

[brassnecked]

HARINGEY COUNCIL LOSES TO LOCAL CAMPAIGNERS IN SUPREME COURT BATTLE ABOUT 2012 COUNCIL TAX CONSULTATION

 

The Judgment below:

 

Judgment 29 October 2014

 

 

Big OUCH for the muppet Burghers in Haringey:whoo:

 

They tried to imply their way was the only way, and the people least able to afford to pay would be thrown on the mercy of the bailiffs in extremis

 

"

[HCEOs]

HARINGEY COUNCIL LOSES TO LOCAL CAMPAIGNERS IN SUPREME COURT BATTLE ABOUT 2012 COUNCIL TAX CONSULTATION

 

The Judgment below:

 

Judgment 29 October 2014

 

What does the judgment mean? (my Adobe is acting up).

[brassnecked]

What does the judgment mean? (my Adobe is acting up).

 

It might mean that their imposition of the cut to CTR meaning they pay 20% or whatever of the bill from their meagre income and benefits could be unlawful, as the consultation was not in effect a consultation. Potentially all Liability Orders against these people who never used to pay for their arrears may be faulty, as will all bailiff fees applied to the accounts. That is one interpretation.

[outlawla]

Email to Council leaders in England and Wales:

 

Asked not to seek costs for council tax liability orders until they review their legality and rationality.....

[HCEOs]

It's a fair request but it'll ever happen.

[Consumer dude]

I just ignored two liability orders and council took off the costs afterwards as I wasn't playing ball..

[outlawla]

Update on the Reverend Paul Nicolson's High Court appeal.

[outlawla]

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).

[ploddertom]

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 a 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).

 

Small Businesses are used to being ripped off for various different issues & a Business Owner would possibly not query this but just accept it as a business expense. In the meantime the Council are quids in.

[Coughdrop]

As far as I understand things it is pure exploitation of businesses. I see no reason why costs should be any higher at all than a normal summons, and NNDR are arguably easier to collect through enforcement than CTax is. It would be interesting to see figures for successful collection rates NNDR vs CT.

[outlawla]

As far as I understand things it is pure exploitation of businesses. I see no reason why costs should be any higher at all than a normal summons, and NNDR are arguably easier to collect through enforcement than CTax is. It would be interesting to see figures for successful collection rates NNDR vs CT.

 

 

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:

 

5. The decision to charge more in respect of Non-Domestic Rates is one which other local authorities are taking in increasing numbers. (There are two in this region currently, Bradford and Sheffield.) The reasoning behind this is that it is believed that some businesses deliberately delay payment of Rates as the penalty for late payment is so small in comparison to the amount that might be owed. The extra cost is seen as a way of encouraging prompt payment.

 

 

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.

 

For Business Rate cases, where the amounts involved can run into many thousands of pounds, the amount of costs should therefore act in some part as a deterrent and justifies the additional increase over Council Tax.

 

 

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:

 

6.11. Court Costs

 

6.11.1. The Review Panel found that other councils had obtained agreement to raise Court Costs recharged to non-payers by a significant level. This charge is intended to act as a deterrent to both late and non-payers and enables councils to fund improved recovery measures. The Review Panel concluded that the Benefits and Local Taxation Service could improve performance by ensuring that it agrees the highest possible level of Court Costs to be charged to non-payers

 

Recommendation B2. “Court Costs”

 

That the Benefits and Local Taxation Service ensure the maximum amount possible is charged for Court Costs and to review the charge at regular intervals subject to any guidance/legislation governing Court Costs.

[outlawla]

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.

[Bailiff Advice]

As far as I understand things it is pure exploitation of businesses. I see no reason why costs should be any higher at all than a normal summons, and NNDR are arguably easier to collect through enforcement than CTax is. It would be interesting to see figures for successful collection rates NNDR vs CT.

 

This is a scandal that has been ongoing for so many years and no doubt is now seen as 'normal' practice for local authorities.

[outlawla]

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).

 

£400k overspend in customer services predominately due to slippage in delivery of the 2014/15 savings (£660k) partially offset by forecast over achievement of court costs income.

 

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)

[lookinforinfo]

Outlawla I could not find the case using your link but so I bypassed it by going straight to Baillii.org so I have included the link below and perhaps one of them will help others.

 

http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/sino_search_1.cgi?sort=rank&query=Attfield and R and 2013&method=boolean&highlight=1&mask_path=ew wales uk/cases/UKPC uk/cases/UKHL

 

However it appears to be more that the Council were using Parking as a means of raising revenue rather than Court costs as evidenced by this statement

17. The report went on to consider options for "maximising income". Among other steps, it referred to an ongoing review of the existing fees and charges for parking as part of a full review of the special parking account and all related income and expenditure.

 

Equally as bad of course and just as unlawful as confirmed by the Judge.

[outlawla]

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

 

Revs, Bens & Customer Services Management Costs - the underlying cause of this over spend is the higher than planned demand for services particularly around benefits. This has led to notable over spends on salaries and postage costs. These pressures have mitigated down by an overachievement of income from reimbursement of court costs incurred during recovery activity.

 

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

 

Revenues, Benefits & Customer Services - Management - the funding and responsibility for local welfare provision (Support Fund) transferred to local authorities from April 2013. Haringey along with many other authorities has significantly underspent this grant (£877k) and proposes to transfer it to a reserve for drawdown in the future. This is particularly important as the government has confirmed that funding will cease from 2015/16. The remaining under spend (£446k) is due to over achievement of court cost income and receipt of one-off grant funding largely in support of the changes to welfare and universal credit.