Me v the council "test case"

[outlawla]

This doesn't seem to have any bearing on the point you're making but just for the record, S.I 1994/505 (reg 5) amends regulation 33 of the 1992 Council Tax Regulations.

 

The amendment primarily clarifies the position regarding when a final notice need not be served if the debtor fails to pay any instalments due within seven days of the issue of a reminder notice.

 

Regulation 33 amended is as follows:

 

Liability orders: preliminary steps

 

33.—(1) Subject to paragraph (3), before a billing authority applies for a liability order it shall serve on the person against whom the application is to be made a notice (“final notice”), which is to state every amount in respect of which the authority is to make the application.

 

(2) A final notice may be served in respect of an amount at any time after it has become due.

 

(3) Nothing in paragraph (1) shall require the service of a final notice in the circumstances mentioned in paragraph (3) of regulation 23 (including that paragraph as applied as mentioned in regulation 28A(2)).

[EDW2000]

The way I read the regulation below. The council sends out a final reminder that INCLUDES the costs reasonably to be incurred obtaining the liability order.

All the council has to do is include the costs amount (is to make the application) into the final demand saying this will be the amount if the original xxx amount is not paid within 7 days.

It appears that this is how the Newham final notice is laid out. I am unable to post a link as this is my first post here.

 

The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992

Liability orders: preliminary steps

33.—(1) Subject to paragraph (3), before a billing authority applies for a liability order it shall serve on the person against whom the application is to be made a notice (“final notice”), which is to be in addition to any notice required to be served under Part V, and which is to state every amount in respect of which the authority is to make the application.

 

Until we get to the HC we wont know for sure.

 

 

 

Liability orders: preliminary steps

 

33.—(1) Subject to paragraph (3), before a billing authority applies for a liability order it shall serve on the person against whom the application is to be made a notice (“final notice”), which is to be in addition to any notice required to be served under Part V, and which is to state every amount in respect of which the authority is to make the application.

 

(2) A final notice may be served in respect of an amount at any time

after it has become due

.

 

(3) A final notice need not be served on a person who has been served under regulation 23(1) with a reminder notice in respect of the amount concerned.

 

 

 

costs are not due until liabilty order is issued so cannot be "due" at Final Notice" stage?

[sdovid]

(2) A final notice may be served in respect of an amount at any time after it has become due.

This is just the trigger action in respect of an amount due. However the contents of the notice is to state every amount in respect of which the authority is to make the application.

[sdovid]

This doesn't seem to have any bearing on the point you're making but just for the record

 

The amendment primarily clarifies the position regarding when a final notice need not be served if the debtor fails to pay any instalments due within seven days of the issue of a reminder notice.

 

The amendment primarily clarifies the position regarding when a final notice need not be served if the debtor fails to pay any instalments due within seven days of the issue of a reminder notice.

 

I remain unclear as to what the position is if someone had underpaid his installments.

Just this morning we have a case when somebody paid the second and third installment the same amount as the first. They where therefore short of £4 on each payment. Without any notice a summons was received adding another £70 costs.

If I understand properly no reminder notice need be sent but a final notice is mandatory before a summons.

[outlawla]

I remain unclear as to what the position is if someone had underpaid his installments.

Just this morning we have a case when somebody paid the second and third installment the same amount as the first. They where therefore short of £4 on each payment. Without any notice a summons was received adding another £70 costs.

If I understand properly no reminder notice need be sent but a final notice is mandatory before a summons.

 

A final notice is not necessary in the circumstances mentioned in paragraph (3) of regulation 23 (see below)

 

(3) If, within the period of 7 days beginning with the day on which a reminder notice is issued, the liable person fails to pay any instalments which are or will become due before the expiry of that period, the unpaid balance of the estimated amount shall become payable by him at the expiry of a further period of 7 days beginning with the day of the failure.

 

See regulation 33 (paragraph 3):

 

Liability orders: preliminary steps

 

33.—(1) Subject to paragraph (3), before a billing authority applies for a liability order it shall serve on the person against whom the application is to be made a notice (“final notice”), which is to state every amount in respect of which the authority is to make the application.

 

(2) A final notice may be served in respect of an amount at any time after it has become due.

 

(3) Nothing in paragraph (1) shall require the service of a final notice in the circumstances mentioned in paragraph (3) of regulation 23 (including that paragraph as applied as mentioned in regulation 28A(2)).

 

In the quoted scenario, after the second payment was short by £4 this should have triggered a reminder. If the account was not brought up to date within 14 days the clowncil would not need to issue a final reminder and would be permitted to issue a summons. Maybe there was no reminder?

 

Additional information:

 

The number of reminders is dependant on whether an account is brought up to date after the first one in the financial year. For example, if after the first reminder an account is brought up to date in accordance with the demand, they must send another reminder if payments are subsequently missed. If the account is not brought up to date after being issued a first reminder they can go straight for a liability order.

[sdovid]

I do not want to hijack this thread from the original topic yet we are covering an important issue. I hope this concludes the issue and we get out teeth back into the liability order costs. We may have to start a new thread and have a link to it. You have explained to me exactly as I understood. Either a reminder gets sent when one falls behind with the instalments or else a final reminder has to be sent. If neither has happened (as in this case) then the summons is illegal.

[sdovid]

I have to correct myself. I was just told that a reminder was received but paid. I have to see it before going further on the reminder issue. However on the liability fee we still have a lot of ground.

I have advised that he first rings up the council asking to have the summons canceled and installments reinstated. If the council refuses than ask what extras are they charging for the pre liability. If it is the same as the full liability charge they may as well take it to the hearing stage and challenge the charge.

[EDW2000]

I need the full report in 'R. v. Brentford Justices ex parte Catlin', All England Law Reports [1975] 2 All ER QBD p.206-207,

 

if anyone can post a copy would be nice.

[ss002d6252]

I have to correct myself. I was just told that a reminder was received but paid. I have to see it before going further on the reminder issue. However on the liability fee we still have a lot of ground.

I have advised that he first rings up the council asking to have the summons canceled and installments reinstated. If the council refuses than ask what extras are they charging for the pre liability. If it is the same as the full liability charge they may as well take it to the hearing stage and challenge the charge.

 

 

In respect of the reminder notice there is also the requirement to pay any further instalments occurring within 7 days of the date of the reminder with 7 days of that instalment becoming due - if this is not done then the reminder is not complied with and the summons can then be issued. Have you taken this in to consideration ?.

 

 

Regulation 23(3)

(3) If, within the period of 7 days beginning with the day on which a reminder notice is issued, the liable person fails to pay any instalments which are or will become due before the expiry of that period, the unpaid balance of the estimated amount shall become payable by him at the expiry of a further period of 7 days beginning with the day of the failure.

[sdovid]

I need the full report in 'R. v. Brentford Justices ex parte Catlin', All England Law Reports [1975] 2 All ER QBD p.206-207,

If I remember correctly the court can appoint anybody in the council to issue and sign the summons. The actual signing can be done electronically by a push of a button provided only the button pusher has this unique button that only he/she can use.

 

As I am unable to post a direct line look for it in google.

324610/council_-tax-liability-order-hearings-plymouth-magistrates-court.doc

"Documents sent by the local council do not require a court seal or a court signatory."

Edited June 11, 2015 by sdovid

[outlawla]

If I remember correctly the court can appoint anybody in the council to issue and sign the summons. The actual signing can be done electronically by a push of a button provided only the button pusher has this unique button that only he/she can use.

 

As I am unable to post a direct line look for it in google.

324610/council_-tax-liability-order-hearings-plymouth-magistrates-court.doc

"Documents sent by the local council do not require a court seal or a court signatory."

 

The MoJ's response regarding R. v. Brentford Justices ex parte Catlin in the Plymouth Magistrates court FOI request inadvertently provided a lead to the far more incriminating substance of the case.

 

Read "in this link" from the point where it states: "Lord Chief Justice Widgery was ruling on the affixing of a judge’s signature by rubber stamp....."

[EDW2000]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]58096[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]58097[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]58092[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]58093[/ATTACH]any comment on costs?

[outlawla]

Can't see the image files. If you convert them to pdf then upload them that should work, or link to them some other way.

[EDW2000]

http://www.filedropper.com/enccosts1

http://www.filedropper.com/enccosts2

http://www.filedropper.com/enccosts3

http://www.filedropper.com/enccosts4

[outlawla]

In my opinion the cost are blatantly unlawful. In general terms there are elements of the standard £75 costs that can not be compliant with the Regulations, based as they are on the premise that any expenditure considered attributable to recovery and enforcement activity (however tenuously linked) is recoverable by recharging it to the defendants through costs claimed in an application for a Liability Order.

 

More specifically the summons costs includes liability order costs.

 

The law only provides for costs to be claimed by the council in respect of obtaining a liability order, if the case proceeds to court and a liability order is obtained. Where payment is made before the case is heard (after service of a summons) only costs up to the point where an amount has been paid or tendered are provided for in the regulations.

 

Observing legislative restrictions that limit costs to expenditure incurred up to the point where an amount has been paid or tendered, and, mindful that this council claims an identical sum in cases that proceed to court, then it is falling foul of the law because the further cost incurred in obtaining an order is not borne by the council/taxpayer. The expenditure is obviously being unlawfully added in respect of instituting the complaint (summons issue).

 

It would also be falling foul of the law if the further cost incurred after obtaining a liability order were included in the costs claimed to obtain the order or for the summons.

 

They have included expenditure for reminders/final notices which I believe the High Court judgment in your first post has determined does not constitute legitimate expenditure, on the basis that recovery has not begun at that stage.

 

The £99,932 attributable to checking etc. is very dubious as I have received summonses after being fully up to date with instalments. I'd say the council more likely than not relies on the automated council tax system.

 

11% Revenues & Benefits (£148,928) suggests that this relates to customer queries, setting up payment arrangements etc., and could even be incurred in respect of these activities after the council have obtained a liability order which is about as unlawful as it gets.

[outlawla]

Apart from the breakdown not splitting the costs total between the summons expenditure and liability order, they have divided the total figure by the number of liability orders obtained which would be about £10 less per summons if they had divided the total figure by the number of summonses.

 

£260,924 / 3,496 (liability orders) = £74.60

 

£260,924 / 4,052 (summons) = £64.40

[outlawla]

There is another angle which is to look at how many staff are needed (or a rough estimate) to justify the amount of hours that have been attributed to the work involved in the summons production.

 

It seems as though the hourly rate based on average staffing costs is £23.17. Therefore if you add up all the relevant costs, i.e., those which refer to average staffing costs you can begin to roughly get an idea how many full time staff there would be needed to do the all the work claimed (See below, Total = £254,051.23).

 

£46.37 + £834.12 + £278.04 + £590.84 + £23.17 + £69.51 + £99,932.21 + £69.51 + £69.51 + £139.02 + £69.51 + £139.02 + £23.17 + £139.02 + £590.84 + £23.17 + £2,085.53

+ £148,928.67 (11% of Revenues & Benefits Budget)

 

Divide the Total by the average staffing costs ..... £254,051.23 / £23.17 = 10,964.662 Hours

 

Assuming a full time employee works 40 hours a week with 4 weeks holiday (no sick days), then the number of hours attributed annually for each employee would roughly equal 1,920 hours.

 

So:-

 

10,964.662 Hours / 1,920 = 5.7 full time staff working constantly with no dinner or tea breaks exclusively on summons work

 

You can also estimate how many staff are employed to account for the other 89% of Revenues & Benefits Budget to see how feasible that might be.

 

£1,204,968.30 (89% of R&B Budget) / £23.17 = 52,005.539 Hours

 

52,005.539 Hours / 1,920 = 27.08 full time staff

[EDW2000]

I agree, however, all I have to say is that the costs do not show where £75.00 comes from. End of argument.

 

The costs should look like this:

 

 

Staff time before summons sent 10 minutes = £5.00

P&P £2.00

Summons Fee £3.00

Time spent travelling to and attending court = £5.00

Computer software and fixed overheads = £5.00

 

What it costs to run the entire dept for a year is irrelvant. I know what they are trying to which is

 

total costs per year = £1m

 

divide by number of liability orders = 10,000

 

Average cost of liability order = £100

 

This is not the correct approach, each case must be judged on its own merits.

[outlawla]

....This is not the correct approach, each case must be judged on its own merits.

 

I agree! Where a taxpayer exercises his right to challenge the costs in his own circumstances the obligation is on the council to calculate them in that specific case.

 

The judgment in the Reverend's case relevant to this matter is at paragraph 46:

 

.....may be a legitimate approach for a local authority to calculate and aggregate the relevant costs it has incurred in the previous year, and divide that up by the previous (or anticipated) number of summonses over twelve months so as to provide an average figure which could be levied across the board in "standard" cases, but could be amplified in circumstances where there was justification for incurring additional legal and/or administrative costs...

 

I think it should also have been added that the "standard" costs could be reduced in circumstances where it was demonstrated that there were less costs incurred than those that made up the standard sum.

[EDW2000]

Council now in retreat and stopped issuing summonses. Email below:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dear xxxxxx

 

Magistrates court summons

 

 

You had previously been advised that our next date for sending Magistrates Court summonses would be today, 25 June 2015.

 

However, because the costs are currently under review I am unable to issue any summonses until I receive authorisation from our Executive Director. Once I receive confirmation I will advise you of the new date.

 

Revenues Team

[sdovid]

I asume that the new summons will have to be seen by a magistrate first.

BTW I was unable to download the costs sheets from the links given.

[sdovid]

look at the what do they know site for the latest.

costs_in_obtaining_a_liability_order

[outlawla]

look at the what do they know site for the latest.

costs_in_obtaining_a_liability_order

 

Not sure if I found the response which is referred to in your post. I did however find this one when entering the words in a search engine:

 

FOI 6619.docx

 

EDIT:

 

It seems that is the response in document form relating to this request: No checks made before issuing court summonses

[sdovid]

I am still unable to post a link on this forum due to my small number of posts.

I was refering to Hackney. Make a google search for

 

Costs in obtaining a liability order for default of council tax

in whatdotheyknow

[outlawla]

I am still unable to post a link on this forum due to my small number of posts.

I was refering to Hackney. Make a google search for

 

Costs in obtaining a liability order for default of council tax

in whatdotheyknow

 

This one: Costs in obtaining a liability order for default of council tax payments?