Reverend Paul Nicolson wins Judicial Review to challenge the fees councils charge when applying for a Liability Order.

[Guest]

I have gone through all the links and replaced them as they were not working.

 

http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2015/1252.html&query=Tottenham+Magistrates+and+Haringey&method=all

 

citb, for ref

according to their site its just the url link that shld be linked, not a link with search terms in the header/link etc

eg http://www.bailii.org/bailii/help/linking.html

i followed that in the prev thread, but it still kept breaking.

 

testing the url as per their instructs link again

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2015/1252.html

 

and testing another random

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2015/159.html

[Guest]

yep, links not working via cag. they work if pasted into a browser.

 

can delete my posts, was just for ref.

[outlawla]

The CAG software automatically changes the 'A' in the word admin to a lower case 'a'. That is all the problem is.

 

On all the apparently broken links you just need to change the 'a' to an 'A' in the word 'admin' in the address bar.

 

EDIT: Just changed the a and the A round in my post above as it was wrong the first time round.

[Guest]

The CAG software automatically changes the 'a' in the word admin to a capital 'A'. That is all the problem is.

 

On all the apparently broken links you just need to change the 'A' to an 'a' in the word 'admin' in the address bar.

 

baillii uses a capital A in their url to be linked! and is A in the address bar that works, and using a in the address bar doesnt work.

[wobbly]

Well done to the reverend,does this not also open a can of worms re costs in no tv license and dvla etc

[Guest]

The CAG software automatically changes the 'A' in the word admin to a lower case 'a'. That is all the problem is.

 

On all the apparently broken links you just need to change the 'a' to an 'A' in the word 'admin' in the address bar.

 

EDIT: Just changed the a and the A round in my post above as it was wrong the first time round.

 

ah, i see what mean now re yr edit (the link links with an a (when hovering on it, or clicking on it) rather than A even though the posted link is with an A)

something for CAG to address?

[Bailiff Advice]

Well done to the reverend,does this not also open a can of worms re costs in no tv license and dvla etc

 

YES!!!!!

 

The following is taken from a post that I made on the other thread regarding the Reverend's case:

 

'Behind the scenes' I am making representations regarding the level of 'reasonable costs' that Magistrates Court clerks are allowing to Capita (in respect of summonses for TV Licence evasions) and to DVLA for vehicle related offences.

 

In the case of TV Licensing, my argument is that with the introduction of the 'single justice' there will be no requirement for a Capita Court Presenter to attend court and accordingly, I struggle to see how the court can allow them to charge £120 'costs' .

 

If the Reverend's case forces Magistrates Courts to examine requests for 'costs' then this must surely apply 'across the board'.

 

In readiness for challenging the costs for TV Licensing I just so happen to have received some very interesting documentation from the BBC in response to an FOI request !!!

[brassnecked]

"In readiness for challenging the costs for TV Licensing I just so happen to have received some very interesting documentation from the BBC in response to an FOI request !"

 

Doesn't TVL aka Capita take a bloc session at the court as councils do with Council Tax If so how can they justify their costs?

[Bailiff Advice]

"In readiness for challenging the costs for TV Licensing I just so happen to have received some very interesting documentation from the BBC in response to an FOI request !"

 

Doesn't TVL aka Capita take a bloc session at the court as councils do with Council Tax If so how can they justify their costs?

 

Yes, TV Licence cases are held in bloc sessions and yet, the Magistrate Court allow identical costs of £120 in each case. In the Reverend's Judicial Review the Magistrate's have been severally taken to task and I would hope that they would be willing to take a serious look at these fees.

[outlawla]

....Auditors will be going in apparently to work out the actual costs involved and it may be if those auditors wish to retain that Council as a future customer that they may have to arrive at a figure not unadjacent to the £125. I hope I am being unduly pessimistic on this but certainly no claim against Haringay could be countenanced until they have an acceptable figure-acceptable to the Council and the Magistrates Court in Tottenham who this time might challenge the figure proposed should it not be in line with other Councils in the area. They [Tottenham Mags] should be as embarrassed as Haringay Council over this case....

 

Interestingly KPMG (Auditor) distanced itself from endorsing the summons costs of its customer NELC. Paragraphs 82 to 94

[brassnecked]

Interestingly KPMG (Auditor) distanced itself from endorsing the summons costs of its customer NELC. Paragraphs 82 to 94

 

They thought they were as curved as a set of EU accounts then. The whole issue of summons costs is that it impacts unfairly on the can't pays who are driven further into debt by an unaffordable bill and ludicrous costs, then kicked in the nuts with bailiff fees later on

[caledfwlch]

Yes, TV Licence cases are held in bloc sessions and yet, the Magistrate Court allow identical costs of £120 in each case. In the Reverend's Judicial Review the Magistrate's have been severally taken to task and I would hope that they would be willing to take a serious look at these fees.

 

A shocking fact that came out on a Magistrate's Blog, is that of course, most people summonsed for TV Licence evasion don't even attend Court. Under the rules, unless the Defendant is there to tell them different, they must "assume" the Defendant is earning £400 a week and thus must set the fine based on an income of £400 weekly, and not the likely reality of £73 Jobseekers Allowance etc. so a much unfairer fine is then set.

[Bailiff Advice]

Interestingly KPMG (Auditor) distanced itself from endorsing the summons costs of its customer NELC. Paragraphs 82 to 94

 

Your complaint against North East Lincs is well know and in fact in the Reverend's case, he too approached the auditor before applying for a Judicial Review and his request was also rejected.

 

As I have explained, given the current judgment the auditor in the case of the Reverend would find it very difficult to now oppose an inspection.

[outlawla]

....

 

As I have explained....

 

What's with the condescending attitude?

[Bailiff Advice]

 

PS: Local authorities and Magistrate Courts are fully aware of this judgment and my personal view is that any new government will quickly bring new legislation into place similar to that already in place in Wales capping the 'costs' at £70.

 

Well the new government have replaced Eric Pickles. We now have Greg Clark as the new Secretary of State at the Department of Communities and Local Government.

 

PS: The councils will be jumping for joy.

[outlawla]

Birmingham City Council must have recently hiked its summons costs from £65 to £80.

 

8 January 2015

 

By law, the council has to pay the courts £3 per application. The remaining £62 is to cover:

 

Telephone call handling £10

IT overheads £12

Postage £1

Printing £4

Staffing £29

Correspondence handling £4

Legal advice £1

Accommodation £1

These are our best estimates of the proportion of our total costs under each heading that relate to actions taken in relation to or as a result of the issue of a summons.

 

These costs will have increased since then, but our costs figure has remained unchanged.

[citizenB]

telephone call handling £10

IT overheads £12

Postage £1

Printing £4

Staffing £29

Correspondence handling £4

Legal advice £1

Accommodation £1

 

Their legal advice is pretty reasonably priced out !!

 

But what is the "accommodation" they are charging for ?

[outlawla]

Their legal advice is pretty reasonably priced out !!

 

But what is the "accommodation" they are charging for ?

 

On an individual basis £1 per case in respect of Legal Advice might appear reasonably priced (not that there is likely to be any).

 

However, these applications are made in bulk and it appears that Birmingham City Council served 94,672 summonses in 2013/14. The council has admitted to accounting for £1 for each summons in respect of this advice so it has in fact misinformed the Magistrates' court that it has incurred £94,672 for the 2013/14 financial year.

 

Accommodation will most likely be the cost of providing office space.

[altcr]

I hope that councils will now have to refund monies obtained in this way. The banks etc. have had to regarding PPI etc. and I don't see why the councils should be any different . Much respect to Reverend Paul Nicolson!

[Coughdrop]

I hope that councils will now have to refund monies obtained in this way. The banks etc. have had to regarding PPI etc. and I don't see why the councils should be any different . Much respect to Reverend Paul Nicolson!

 

I asked this very question earlier in the thread somewhere. I think the answer was it wouldn't be another ppi, but people are able to pursue their own council on an individual basis. Check back through the thread and you'll find exactly what the response was.

[ploddertom]

Whereas we may all be pleased about the outcome for Rev Nicholson we should be careful what we ask for. I can see some Councils looking at the nitty gritty and wouldn't be at all surprised if some come up with more expensive options.

[outlawla]

Whereas we may all be pleased about the outcome for Rev Nicholson we should be careful what we ask for. I can see some Councils looking at the nitty gritty and wouldn't be at all surprised if some come up with more expensive options.

 

Yes! You have to factor in the vindictive nature of these people who use their public role to indulge in their own personal perverse gratification.

[Bailiff Advice]

Following the Reverend's Judicial Review the current situation is that the District Auditor will examine the amount charged to tax payers in Haringay. It is my understanding that the eventual findings will not apply to any other local authority as their overheads etc will vary.

 

Clearly the Magistrate's Courts will now have a far greater responsibility to request a breakdown from each local authority. They are after all responsible for allowing the local authority to apply the costs.

 

From information that I have been given it would seem that following the court decision all local authorities are now undertaking the task of properly calculating the true cost and I would assume that in some cases, the amount may well increase (this is more likely to apply to London authorities).

 

It is hoped that the government will quickly introduce a cap which is already the case in Wales.

[outlawla]

The Reverend's judgment should have the effect of putting pressure on Magistrates' Courts to scrutinise the breakdowns and ensure that the costs are limited to the proper expenditure in obtaining a liability order/summons issue and not as they have included up until now the entire costs of recovery.

[Coughdrop]

The Reverend's judgment should have the effect of putting pressure on Magistrates' Courts to scrutinise the breakdowns and ensure that the costs are limited to the proper expenditure in obtaining a liability order/summons issue and not as they have included up until now the entire costs of recovery.

 

Indeed - I hope you're right. I hope his case inspires others to challenge where they feel things are not right as well. I think we've had enough of unfair charges.