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

[outlawla]

Harrow Borough Council, page 35 of a report from its 'Overview and Scrutiny Committee' (Council Tax Support (CTS) Scheme).

 

Recommendations

.....

 

3. That, considering the legal challenge to Haringey regarding their costs, the Council should reduce its unjustified (summons/liability orders) costs for CTS arrears to the actual court costs to the Council and defray other Council costs to the general fund.

....

 

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.

[lookinforinfo]

Thank you for posting that report from Harrow Council. I read it with great interest since I lived there for some years and fell foul of their draconian

methods of collecting C/T arrears. Eventually I took Drakes bailiffs to Court and got all the money back that I had paid plus my expenses. This was

in the early days of CAG and we did not have the benefit of as many experts as there are here now.

I remember having a furious row with a supervisor at the Council who I did not realise at the time was from Capita and had I known that I could have

bypassed them by going straight to the CEO I might have got my money back more quickly.

 

It will be interesting to see if the Council do implement the recommendations in the report. One might wonder how much input Capita had in

the setting of some of those costs.

[outlawla]

...It will be interesting to see if the Council do implement the recommendations in the report. One might wonder how much input Capita had in

the setting of some of those costs.

 

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:

 

13.4 Enquiries with some authorities who have adopted a system of two-tier charges to lower and higher balances or individual groups have established they have received no legal challenge to date. However, it is the opinion of Hull City Councils Monitoring Officer that such a system could leave this authority open to legal challenge and consequential financial risk. Therefore on the basis of that advice, options centring on a two-tier charge for lower and higher balances have not been put forward. Instead, options have centred on splitting the charge between summons and liability order or removing/reducing the charge for immediate payment upon receipt of summons.

 

 

Paragraphs 6.5, 6.6 and 7.7 of the report:

 

6.5 .....Concern was expressed by the Monitoring Officer regarding options presented that offered a two tier system of costs charged with a lesser charge for those with lower balances and/or those who are on Local Council Tax Support. After being advised that the cost of the work up to and including the instigating court proceedings is the same (regardless of the value of the debt) it was the opinion of the Monitoring Officer that it would not be lawful to charge a lesser level of costs to those with smaller balances and/or those on Local Council Tax Support, particularly as it could be viewed that others would be subsidising the lower charge for those groups. Appendix 2 to this paper demonstrates other Local Authorities that do this, but those decisions have been taken at an operational level without legal advice being sought. Whilst none of the Authorities operating such schemes have received a challenge, the opinion of this Authorities Monitoring Officer is that the introduction of such a scheme by this Authority would not be lawful.

 

6.6 It was agreed that the splitting of costs across different stages of recovery work would be lawful; however regulations only allow costs to be split at Summons and liability order stage. The options now presented at 7.1 to 7.6 take into account the advice of the Monitoring Officer.

 

.....

 

7.7 ....Adopting such a model could leave the authority open to legal challenge from those with higher balances who incur the full costs but whose ability to pay is the same as a minority of those with smaller balances. It would only take a challenge in one case to create the potential for case law which could leave the authority open to financial risk.

 

 

At paragraph 8.1 of the report, a high court case is cited:

 

8.1 ...It was held on judicial review of a licensing case R v Highgate Justices ex parte Petrou [1954] 1 ALL ER 406 that costs should not exceed the proper costs incurred and should not be a penalty.

 

It is understood that the costs incurred in pursuing recovery action are the same for each respondent, save where respondents pay at an early stage in the recovery process. If a claim below actual cost is made the difference can only be made up by charging other non-paying residents more than actual cost, which would not be lawful, or by funding the costs incurred from an alternate revenue source. However, it remains open to the Magistrates Court to award a lower level of costs than that incurred on the basis of proportionality or ability to pay.

 

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

...

[outlawla]

It will be interesting to see if the Council do implement the recommendations in the report. One might wonder how much input Capita had in the setting of some of those costs.

 

Harrow's Cabinet response to the recommendations of the Council Tax Support Scheme Challenge Panel.

 

Page 7 of the 11 December 2014 document.

 

3. That, considering the legal challenge to Haringey regarding their costs, the Council should reduce its unjustified (summons/liability orders) costs for CTS arrears to the actual court costs to the Council and defray other Council costs to the general fund.

 

Response

 

It is presumed that the reference to the legal challenge to Haringey, is a reference to the decision by the High Court to grant permission to hear a case brought by the Revd [Nicolson] against Tottenham Magistrates’ Court.

 

Summons cost were increased on the 1st April 2014 to £130. This increase will be reversed on 1st April 2015. A further review will be carried out work to ensure that it is only recovering what it is legally permitted to recover. The award of costs is a matter for the Magistrates’ Court.

 

 

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.

[lookinforinfo]

Yes, Harrow's response would seem to imply that once they have reduced the £5 charge that they would be within the Law. I rather doubt that the amount reduced will have the effect of making their costs anything other than still unjustifiably high.

[brassnecked]

Yes, Harrow's response would seem to imply that once they have reduced the £5 charge that they would be within the Law. I rather doubt that the amount reduced will have the effect of making their costs anything other than still unjustifiably high.

They are still too dear at the £75 allowable in Wales, as it is higher than a weeks JSA for a single person over 25, I feel the Reverend's case is compelling but don't be surprised if the court ultimately goes with the councils,undermining public confidence in the system, Wales has a devolved government, floodgates and all that, but I hope he wins, and the whole corrupt system is brought into disrepute.

 

It is obnoxious and repugnant that a council should seek to profit from misery, and enforcement

[outlawla]

They are still too dear at the £75 allowable in Wales, as it is higher than a weeks JSA for a single person over 25, I feel the Reverend's case is compelling but don't be surprised if the court ultimately goes with the councils,undermining public confidence in the system, Wales has a devolved government, floodgates and all that, but I hope he wins, and the whole corrupt system is brought into disrepute.

 

It is obnoxious and repugnant that a council should seek to profit from misery, and enforcement

 

 

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.

[brassnecked]

That wraps up their credibility outlawla. It's all about raking in revenue.

[outlawla]

Surprised to see Councils still admitting to increasing and front loading court costs as their motive for generating extra income to plug holes in their budgets and to act as a penalty.

 

Page 6 of Newcastle City Council's 2015/16 Budget proposal

 

 

Increase court costs

 

In line with our tougher approach to dealing with debt recovery we propose revising our court costs for summons and liability orders. As shown in the table below, we propose to front load costs at Summons stage to incentivise debtors to settle their debts at an earlier stage in the recovery process. A combined charge of £100 is inline with Tyne and Wear neighbours.

 

Summons Charge – Current/Proposed

£42 / £60

Liability order – Current/Proposed

£42 / £40

This will need to be agreed by the Magistrates court, and will generate an additional £70k per year (in addition to any increased recovery of debt).

[brassnecked]

They are blatant about it, and obviously feel they are above the law.

[outlawla]

They are blatant about it, and obviously feel they are above the law.

 

It seems after checking out its neighbouring authorities, its claim that 'a combined charge of £100 is inline with Tyne and Wear neighbours', is not entirely true.

 

This would appear questionable as Newcastle's proposed increase would bring its costs to a level exceeding most of its neighbours. For example, South Tyneside council's are recorded at being £62.00 overall with summons charged at £38.00 and £24.00 added if a liability order is obtained (2013/14). For the same year Durham County Council charged £80 overall.

 

However, there are apparently at least two of its neighbouring authorities which have proposed similar increases and are in line with Newcastle. Northumberland County Council is one, and because North Tyneside's costs evidently mirror Northumberland's, NT is another.

 

Prior to 1 April 2011, Northumberland charged overall costs of £60 but from then increased to £100. The proposals were detailed in its Council Tax Billing Options (Appendix E):

 

35. Based on actual costs of £402,326 that were paid to the Council in 2009/10 an increase of £20 to £50 for the summons costs and an increase of £20 to £50 for the liability order costs (£100.00 in total) to bring the Council more in line with neighbouring Authorities will result in a potential increase in income of £268,217 to £670,543.

 

There was opposition from members of a Scrutiny Committee of the proposed increase to £100 and was suggested that a more modest increase to £80 would be fairer.

 

The proposal was defended by it being pointed out that the 'costs were at the discretion of the Magistrates Court and that they in no way covered the cost of recovery action. It was also noted that it was only those who had not paid their Council Tax/Non Domestic Rates, despite having been given all the available options, who would be penalised.'

 

It is held on record that at the time, discussions were underway with North Tyneside Council regarding shared services and was suggested no decision made on increasing costs until discussions had taken place to ensure that both Authorities were charging the same level.

 

Though unable to find a link to anything documenting the outcome of the discussions with North Tyneside, it is known that the proposed costs are currently charged and can be safely assumed that the increase was agreed and applied in respect of both authorities.

 

Another reference is found in the February 2011 Medium Term Financial Plan 2011/2015 and Budget 2011/12 at paragraph 54:

 

54. These revised policies are designed to encourage prompt payment, provide additional assistance to residents by enabling payment over twelve months and encourage the use of direct debit as the most cost effective method of payment.

 

Another of its neighbouring authorities, Gateshead Council proposed increases to raise an additional £100k with these court costs.

 

The public were consulted on choices available to make savings as part of the budget setting process for 2014/15 and budget planning for 2015/16. It was proposed in the report that Gateshead council could generate additional income by increasing Council Tax and Business rates court costs. Page 31 of its 15 October 2013 report to Cabinet documents the relevant matter, as follows:

 

(ii) Income – the Council could increase its charges in relation to court costs and the recovery of Council Tax and Business Rates monies. This option could generate income of up to £100,000.

 

Another document (Comprehensive Impact Assessment 2014-16), which at the time only appeared to be available via Google's cache (no longer any trace) added that the savings would be made by increasing its current charge for court costs by £15 from £70 to £85.

[HCEOs]

Given that the government imposed fixed fees in the enforcement industry last year surely it can't be that difficult to impose a fixed average fee for Councils in the same manner?

[outlawla]

Given that the government imposed fixed fees in the enforcement industry last year surely it can't be that difficult to impose a fixed average fee for Councils in the same manner?

 

It depends whether you mean a real average of liability order application costs or the average of the various sums which councils impose.

 

If it was the latter then I'd estimate that to be around £80 to £90, which would at a guess be well over 10 times the cost to councils taking into account economies of scale.

 

You could more cynically ask, why legislation provides that a liability must first be obtained through the Magistrates' court to enable further powers of recovery. It could be understood if the proceedings were not just a rubber stamping exercise and provided a level of protection from out of control councils.

 

Council taxpayers would be no more at risk from reckless local authorities if the law allowed recovery without the charade of them having to apply to the court. However, if the court order was not necessary the government would see a significant loss of court fee revenue as the 3 million or so summonses each year must be relied on to subsides HMCTS.

[Coughdrop]

Wales has imposed a maximum - is this not due to come in in England or have I imagined that?

[brassnecked]

Wales has imposed a maximum - is this not due to come in in England or have I imagined that?

No Wales only at the moment. Besides the London Councils would whinge if their nice little earner was capped at nearly half what they want.

[outlawla]

On the 30th April, Nicolson v Tottenham Magistrates and The London Borough of Haringey will be heard by a judge in the High Court ...

 

Nicolson v Tottenham Magistrates....

[outlawla]

Barking & Dagenham Council must know something that we don't.

 

Reference numbers 988 and 989 (last page) of Barking & Dagenham Council's list of Fees and Charges for 2015/16

 

APPENDIX A

 

"Increases Council Tax court costs fees at the point of summons to include the cost of a liability order rather than charging extra at the liability order stage of collection. Effective from 1/4/15 as Academy cannot be amended until year end."

 

Business rates summons - £227

 

Council Tax summons - £123

 

[brassnecked]

Barking & Dagenham Council must know something that we don't.

 

Reference numbers 988 and 989 (last page) of Barking & Dagenham Council's list of Fees and Charges for 2015/16

 

APPENDIX A

Things that make you go Hmmmmm.

[outlawla]

Update:

 

Nicolson v Tottenham Magistrates & Haringey Council 10am 30th April 2015 Royal Courts of Justice, WC2A 2LL

[brassnecked]

Update:

 

Nicolson v Tottenham Magistrates & Haringey Council 10am 30th April 2015 Royal Courts of Justice, WC2A 2LL

So HMCS have destroyed evidence, now what a surprise (not)

[outlawla]

Annex A of a draft 'Consent Order' intended for a High Court appeal (Statement of reasons for consent order) has some evidence relevant to Haringey.

 

Consent Order

 

Paragraphs 15 and 122 for example.

[citizenB]

Update:

 

Nicolson v Tottenham Magistrates & Haringey Council 10am 30th April 2015 Royal Courts of Justice, WC2A 2LL

 

So HMCS have destroyed evidence, now what a surprise (not)

 

Why did they destroy evidence when this was an on-going case ?

[Bailiff Advice]

Over 45,000 visitors have viewed this thread since I started it 18 months ago and I am sure that I speak for many of those visitors by wishing the Reverend GOOD LUCK for his Judicial Review hearing today at the Royal Courts of Justice.

[brassnecked]

Over 45,000 visitors have viewed this thread since I started it 18 months ago and I am sure that I speak for many of those visitors by wishing the Reverend GOOD LUCK for his Judicial Review hearing today at the Royal Courts of Justice.

Most definitely a Good Luck Reverend Nicholson from me, make the Robber Baron Councils eat humble Pie.

[unclebulgaria67]

Over 45,000 visitors have viewed this thread since I started it 18 months ago and I am sure that I speak for many of those visitors by wishing the Reverend GOOD LUCK for his Judicial Review hearing today at the Royal Courts of Justice.

 

Good luck from me.

 

Is this for a decision on the issue or a decision to take the issue further i.e more court time so that all parties can made representations ?

 

If it is for a decision, I am guessing that the Judges will reserve their judgement until some point in the future and it could be many months before they announced it.