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

[brassnecked]

Wow. At last someone else that recognises that the uk courts and judges at not independent. As an aside, most judges if they had normal jobs would be dismissed for lacking skill and/or doing their jobs properly. How many cases, thousands actually, are decided one way by the magistrate, the other entire opposite by a judge, totally opposite again by the appeal court, and then opposite again by the supreme court. Whoever has decided incorrectly should lose their jobs.. Maybe then they would start taking JUSTICE seriously.

For Liability Orders, the councils run the proceedings and the magistrates rubber stamp them in effect, a kangaroo court. If a debtor turns up to answer the summons the council officials will do their utmost to prevent them actually presenting any defence in front of the magistrates.

[lamma]

Correct. And the court is on a percentage. The court 'issues' the LOs under a contractual obligation to the LA.

Would it not be wonderful if all/most 1000+ turned up for one of these sessions.

Unlikely of course but just a hundred or even a couple of dozen would be enough. That should be doable.

[brassnecked]

Correct. And the court is on a percentage. The court 'issues' the LOs under a contractual obligation to the LA.

Would it not be wonderful if all/most 1000+ turned up for one of these sessions.

Unlikely of course but just a hundred or even a couple of dozen would be enough. That should be doable.

If we could only coordinate a mass attendance amongst those on low incomes affected!

[lamma]

around two dozen would be enough. they would need to be well briefed and able to do what is needed.

[brassnecked]

around two dozen would be enough. they would need to be well briefed and able to do what is needed.

 

Which area would be the best one to find volunteers?

 

It would be well worth doing if we could sort it.

[EWHC1362]

There is another application for a case stated with grounds similarly tabled (or at least on a similar theme) as the reverends.

 

The problem extends far beyond local authorities' thieving, but to the Government (MoJ) itself. No deed to explain further as it's explained in this FoI request (and links) that we have a criminal justice system that is just that, "a criminal system of justice".

 

whatdotheyknow.....Humber & South Yorkshire Local Justice Area lies and obstruction....

[brassnecked]

there is another application for a case stated with grounds similarly tabled (or at least on a similar theme) as the reverends.

 

The problem extends far beyond local authorities' thieving, but to the government (moj) itself. No deed to explain further as it's explained in this foi request (and links) that we have a criminal justice system that is just that, "a criminal system of justice and most likely in breach of the articles of the echr".

whatdotheyknow.....humber & south yorkshire local justice area lies and obstruction....

 

ifypfy

[ploddertom]

-Mass attendance has happened in the past and as has been said caused chaos and if memory serves me resulted in the LO Hearings being spread over more than 1 day. Some of these were as a result of at least 1 Council's back office provider making a ba**s up by summonsing all & sundry to Court including those who had already paid - Sheffield if I remember correctly.

 

As for what happens at Court then all the Magistrates are allowed to consider is whether or not the person is liable to pay - just a simple yes or no.

[brassnecked]

-Mass attendance has happened in the past and as has been said caused chaos and if memory serves me resulted in the LO Hearings being spread over more than 1 day. Some of these were as a result of at least 1 Council's back office provider making a ba**s up by summonsing all & sundry to Court including those who had already paid - Sheffield if I remember correctly.

 

As for what happens at Court then all the Magistrates are allowed to consider is whether or not the person is liable to pay - just a simple yes or no.

Exactly a kangaroo court, no ifs or buts pay or not liable to pay.

[outlawla]

'Case stated' (draft) High Court appeal, (Grimsby Magistrates' Court) "admits"

 

7. We were of the following opinion:-

 

a) We recognise that in all cases where costs are claimed we always have a discretion as to whether to order them, and if so, in what sum. Although the appellant admitted the matter of complaint and costs would therefore normally follow the event, the fact that the respondent [Council] asked for the normal amount of...costs in this case did not prevent us from reducing the amount or refusing to make an order for costs at all.

[tomtubby]

Outlawla,

 

The Explanatory Memorandum cannot of course be any clearer. Your above posts are once again excellent.

[outlawla]

CASE AGAINST £125 COSTS TOTTENHAM MAGISTRATES ALLOW HARINGEY COUNCIL TO COLLECT FROM COUNCIL TAX LATE AND NON PAYERS

 

The High Court agrees to pre Judicial Review hearing.

 

Note: There's a broken link in article to Haringey Independent....this one works: Vicar to take council tax case to High Court

[outlawla]

Taxpayers Against Poverty

 

"Tottenham magistrates refuse to provide FOI copies of their letters to Haringey Council agreeing £125 court costs"

 

The Ministry of Justice obviously has no intention of breaking its tradition of being absolutely useless at locating any information asked of them.

 

On matters related to the Reverend's post, specifically with regards his statement, that: "The council could have reduced costs annually, but so far hasn’t", there might be something of interest in NELC's recent costs review.

 

This is probably the first time a local authority has ever reviewed its cost and decided that in order to be within the law, i.e., not make a profit, the standard costs would need reducing. The 14% reduction of the £70 – which was the amount they were imposing – does not bring the amount down to a reasonable level but should at least set a precedent for all local authorities to follow (including Haringey).

 

It has been recognised that there is potential for legal challenge should income generated exceed expenditure. The fact that income is exceeding councils' costs has been made more obvious because of benefit reforms that have seen the number of summonses issued doubling in some councils.

 

The 17th February 2014 Cabinet report acknowledges this: Review of Council Tax court costs

 

......

 

RECOMMENDATIONS

 

To approve the reduction in court costs from the current level of £70 to £60, which has been calculated as being the reasonable sum incurred, subject to approval from the Magistrate’s Court. This will be effective from the financial year 2014/15.

 

REASONS FOR DECISION

 

The Council Tax (Administration & Enforcement) Regulations allow the council to levy an additional fee which is equal to the amount of costs reasonably incurred in making an application for a Liability Order through the Magistrate’s Court. The level of recommended costs for 2014/15 is based on the most recent activity and cost data, and represents a reduction of £10 due to a reduction in operating costs combined with an increase in activity.

 

RISK ASSESSMENT

 

Failure to review the appropriate level of costs levied leaves the council at risk of levying costs which exceed the overall costs of making applications for Liability Orders. This could contravene government regulations and leave the council at risk of challenge.....

[outlawla]

If proof was ever needed that the levels councils charge in Court costs bare no relation to their incurred cost, it's provided courtesy of Dartford Borough Council:

 

General Assembly of the Council 28 February 2005:

 

Council Tax and National Non-Domestic Rates – Court Costs – Additional income of £74,000

 

Court costs awarded in respect of Council Tax and National Non-Domestic Rates cases total £187,000 to mid January compared with a full year budget of £176,000. If current trends persist the budgeted income is likely to be about £250,000.

 

Appendix C:

 

Council Tax and NNDR – Court Costs – Additional income of £90k

 

Court costs awarded in respect of Council Tax and NNDR cases total £157k to the end of September compared to a full year budget of £176k. If current trends persist the budgeted income will be significantly exceeded, and 90k is a prudent assumption.

 

Appendix A:

 

Court costs awarded in respect of Council Tax arrears are up on budget, with an estimated income position of £142,000 forecast against a budget of £130,000, offsetting to some extent the projected net overspend on Benefits

 

Interestingly they are effectively admiting that court costs are subsidising overspending in another department.

 

General Assembly of the Council 27 February 2006:

 

Recovery - Net underspend of £62,260

 

Court costs raised for both Council Tax and National Non-Domestic Rates as at the end of October totalled over £180,000. Assuming the profile of costs raised is similar to that of 2004/2005, it is estimated that the figure at year end will be in the region of £270,000, compared with a budget of £216,000.

 

This goes to show that figures are just made up and rubber stamped by the Magistrates and made worse by the fact that budgeted costs (regularly exceeded) are wildly inflated to begin with and include inappropriate expenditure of general administration.

[outlawla]

It would be in the Reverend's interest to archive Chiltern District Council's 16 March 2010 Cabinet report on its review of Court Costs in respect of unpaid Council Tax and Business Rates.

 

A very persuasive argument is made about Chiltern (and Haringey, as the law applies equally to all councils) in respect of front loading costs for instituting the summons; more so in the case of Haringey owing to the fact that all £125 of its costs are imposed on issue of a summons (Chiltern currently charges 52% of its total £125 costs on issuing the summons (£65).

 

The document makes it categorically clear that the proposed changes i.e., introducing costs on the issue of summonses and increasing the overall amount, was solely as a budgetary measure to plug a gap in its finances by achieving a 10% saving on the Revenues Service budget.

 

The gem however is what is stated at paragraph 4:

 

4. .......Most of the costs the Council incurs arise from the application for a liability order at Court and the additional work required to secure payment once we have the liability order.

 

Essentially any costs it claims for work once they have obtained the liability order is unlawful and in any event, they have admitted to the fact that the majority of costs (they are lawfully entitled to) is NOT incurred on instituting the summons, but from the application for a liability order at Court.

[outlawla]

Rev Paul Nicolson council tax hearing Tottenham Mags Court, Lordship Lane, N17 6RT 1.30pm Wednesday 11th June......

 

I have been summoned to attend a liability order hearing at Tottenham Magistrates Court, Lordship Lane, Tottenham, N17 6RT at 1.30pm on Wednesday 11th June 2014. I would be grateful for any support with banners and placards that can be provided.

[tomtubby]

I hear that there are already a large number of people waiting outside Tottenham Magistrates Court. I am hoping to get over there myself at midday.

[outlawla]

Haringey Independent

 

Crowds support retired vicar in council tax battle at Tottenham magistrates

[citizenB]

So when will we know the outcome of the hearing ?

[tomtubby]

I have just left a message for him to call me.

[citizenB]

[brassnecked]

Hope he is OK and they have adjouned to await the High Court findings.

[outlawla]

Evidently North East Lincs council doesn't have a monopoly on issuing "penny summonses".

 

South Gloucestershire Council has taken one of its Council Tax payers to court, adding £85 in "costs" for the sum of £0.09p

[brassnecked]

Evidently North East Lincs council doesn't have a monopoly on issuing "penny summonses".

 

South Gloucestershire Council has taken one of its Council Tax payers to court, adding £85 in "costs" for the sum of £0.09p

Is there not a sum below which they should not go for a LO like £50? Has the blogger involved the press?

 

More exidence Council tax enforcement is out of control and wholly disproportionate.

[tomtubby]

UPDATE:

 

With so many people around the court yesterday offering support it was so difficult to speak properly with the Reverend. I have had a long conversation with him this morning and he is fine.

 

The court agreed to adjourn the granting of a Liability Order until 29th October (by which time the JR hearing should have taken place). The council opposed the adjournment stating that the maximum time to adjourn should be August. The Magistrate disagreed.

 

The local authority have still not provided evidence to support their charge of £125 and this is ongoing (and is very interesting indeed).

 

The Tax Payers Against Poverty website should be updated by midday with more details.