• Welcome to the LegalBeagles Consumer and Legal Forum.
    Please Register to get the most out of the forum. Registration is free and only needs a username and email address.
    REGISTER
    Please do not post your full name, reference numbers or any identifiable details on the forum.

Judicial Review of Haringey's £125 Liability Order costs succeeds

Collapse
Loading...
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Re: Judicial Review of Haringey's £125 Liability Order costs succeeds

    As they would I suppose.

    I was just trying to get my head around to agreeing with Rev nicholson about it being a tax on the poor specifically ( as as far as I see it it is a tax on everyone who doesn't pay their CT on time etc) Non-'poor' people don't pay their council tax at times either ( other things come up, disorganised etc) and have the same summons & hearing charges. I can't help feeling he is going down the wrong route.
    #staysafestayhome

    Any support I provide is offered without liability, if you are unsure please seek professional legal guidance.

    Received a Court Claim? Read >>>>> First Steps

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Judicial Review of Haringey's £125 Liability Order costs succeeds

      Originally posted by Amethyst View Post
      I can't help feeling he is going down the wrong route.
      I see what you mean. Judges are not concerned about fairness, for example if there was a law allowing the government to help itself to the saving of anyone with less than £1,000 in the bank, and someone appealed the government's decision to take the whole lot, a judge would determine the case in favour of the state, and be proud of the fact he had come to the right decision, despite the absurdity of it.

      Having said that, the Reverend's arguments do not solely surround the unfairness. The points he makes about the liability order hearing costs being front loaded to the summons are valid and I think the High Court chose not to acknowledge this, preferring perhaps to accept a cobbled together breakdown.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Judicial Review of Haringey's £125 Liability Order costs succeeds

        Personally I think it is fair to charge the same across the board, regardless of your incomings/outgoings.... but them I'm a bit of a flat rate tax supporter as well.

        The points he makes about the liability order hearing costs being front loaded to the summons are valid
        I agree. It's a shame he's choosing to concentrate on the 'unemployed' in his press stuff. If it is unlawful / unfair to add the hearing cost in with the summons cost it is of no consequence whatsoever how much the household in question earns.

        I support what he is doing, I think he might have lost his way a little with the campaigning for the poor angle.
        #staysafestayhome

        Any support I provide is offered without liability, if you are unsure please seek professional legal guidance.

        Received a Court Claim? Read >>>>> First Steps

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Judicial Review of Haringey's £125 Liability Order costs succeeds

          Originally posted by Amethyst View Post
          As they would I suppose.

          I was just trying to get my head around to agreeing with Rev nicholson about it being a tax on the poor specifically ( as as far as I see it it is a tax on everyone who doesn't pay their CT on time etc) Non-'poor' people don't pay their council tax at times either ( other things come up, disorganised etc) and have the same summons & hearing charges. I can't help feeling he is going down the wrong route.
          Having been to the kangaroo court re LOs, it was my observation that, of those who were summonsed & attended, the vast majority seemed pretty potless.

          (Could be we've got more than our fair share of eccentric millionaires/clergyfolk, I suppose!) :biggrin1:
          CAVEAT LECTOR

          This is only my opinion - "Opinions are made to be changed --or how is truth to be got at?" (Byron)

          You and I do not see things as they are. We see things as we are.
          Cohen, Herb


          There is danger when a man throws his tongue into high gear before he
          gets his brain a-going.
          Phelps, C. C.


          "They couldn't hit an elephant at this distance!"
          The last words of John Sedgwick

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Judicial Review of Haringey's £125 Liability Order costs succeeds

            I can't help feeling he is going down the wrong route.
            agreed, on the charges for court costs and liability orders, they do not take off corrections

            thery say, process 100 accounts as LOs, they charge both the phone and staff time , they say that costs 100 per account ( just an example ) , ( say costs of 1000 ie £ 10 per order ), although, out of them 100, 42 end up being removed/corrected leaving just 68

            They dont remove there time and costs for there mistakes from the charges. Ie the 42 false LO accounts, dont pay a thing, the 58 left, pay for the mistakes as well.
            crazy council ( as in local council,NELC ) as a member of the public, i don't get mad, i get even

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Judicial Review of Haringey's £125 Liability Order costs succeeds

              Originally posted by Crazy council View Post
              agreed, on the charges for court costs and liability orders, they do not take off corrections

              thery say, process 100 accounts as LOs, they charge both the phone and staff time , they say that costs 100 per account ( just an example ) , ( say costs of 1000 ie £ 10 per order ), although, out of them 100, 42 end up being removed/corrected leaving just 68

              They dont remove there time and costs for there mistakes from the charges. Ie the 42 false LO accounts, dont pay a thing, the 58 left, pay for the mistakes as well.
              That also goes for expenditure in respect of work in preparing and issuing summonses in cases where discretion is used to waive costs, for example, if the debtor agrees to pay by direct debit. This expenditure is also not recovered from the defendant summonsed and therefore those who do pay the costs must be subsidising work done in respect of proceedings brought against those for whom costs are waived.

              Ironically, it is the people having their costs waived who cause the most significant amount of work through having to arrange payment plans and then continually monitor them.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Judicial Review of Haringey's £125 Liability Order costs succeeds

                Nuther update:

                Media Notice; High Court bamboozled by Haringey Council and Grant Thornton UK their External Auditors

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Judicial Review of Haringey's £125 Liability Order costs succeeds

                  Originally posted by outlawlgo View Post
                  I see what you mean. Judges are not concerned about fairness, for example if there was a law allowing the government to help itself to the saving of anyone with less than £1,000 in the bank, and someone appealed the government's decision to take the whole lot, a judge would determine the case in favour of the state, and be proud of the fact he had come to the right decision, despite the absurdity of it.

                  Having said that, the Reverend's arguments do not solely surround the unfairness. The points he makes about the liability order hearing costs being front loaded to the summons are valid and I think the High Court chose not to acknowledge this, preferring perhaps to accept a cobbled together breakdown.
                  Judicial review is not meant to be about what is fair, as that is obviously subjective in that if you were the council your view would be that if the judicial review went against you it would be unfair. JR is rather about whether the decision-maker, ie the council has made their decision based within their rules, ie is their decision ultra vires or not. If it was thought to be ultra vires then the High Court can refer the decision back to them or quash it. However the judge cannot normally interfere with the decision as there is seemingly a separation of powers within the branches of government (ie courts versus local government). The only times it would based on case law is that if there were bias, wrong use of powers, misunderstanding powers, misunderstanding the facts to which the power were applied etc. Do you have copy of the case?

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Judicial Review of Haringey's £125 Liability Order costs succeeds

                    Originally posted by Openlaw15 View Post
                    ...Do you have copy of the case?
                    I'd like to see the judgment, but perhaps more crucially the calculation (assuming one was submitted) of the costs and any other information which convinced LJ Hamblen that the the expenditure had been incurred in accordance with the relevant legislation and the recent ruling from May 2015.

                    Without even delving into the detail, a decision could be arrived at that the aggregate cost of the summons – which by virtue of them being applied on issue (or before) – could not possibly account for 76% of the total budget for Council Tax Admin and Recovery (£ 2.89 million from a total £3.78).

                    Just to give credence to a statement made by one local authority that the work to secure payment once having obtained the liability order is one of the stages from which most costs arise (the other being the application for a liability order at Court), staff engage in activities ranging from notifying the debtor of possible further action to applying to the court for commitment to prison. Information must be obtained about the debtor’s circumstances in order to assess whether accounts are more suitable for attachments of earnings, deduction from benefits or referral to bailiffs. Where those measures fail to obtain payment then staff might engage in further recovery work, for example applying to the court for charging orders or instigating bankruptcy. Similarly to pre court action arrangements, terms of mutually acceptable payment plans might simply be agreed, albeit still requiring resources to correspond with debtors, re-schedule instalments and then monitor accounts until settled. For all stages, staff must be available for dealing with queries whether by telephone or written correspondence.

                    All the above activities relate to an element of the Council Tax admin & recovery budget, which may not lawfully be included in the costs recharged to the summons, or for that matter the liability order hearing.

                    This all tells you one thing which is that issuing summonses, which are generated automatically as a consequence of settings in the council tax software, can not account for 76% of the whole Council Tax operation.

                    EDIT: If you look at another breakdown for the same year, the element attributed to instituting the summons (aggregate) amounts to 88% of the total budget for Council Tax Admin and Recovery (£3.03 million from a total £3.44).

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Judicial Review of Haringey's £125 Liability Order costs succeeds

                      Some more media coverage...

                      Reverend to appeal high court judgement dismissing case against council tax charges

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Reverend Paul Nicholson challenges Haringey Council’s ‘unfair’ costs in court

                        Hiya
                        I would like to message someone at legal beagles in private how do i do that please.
                        Thanks
                        Lavender2013

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Reverend Paul Nicholson challenges Haringey Council’s ‘unfair’ costs in court

                          Originally posted by Lavender2013 View Post
                          Hiya
                          I would like to message someone at legal beagles in private how do i do that please.
                          Thanks
                          Lavender2013
                          You could send me a PM (click on my name and choose "Private Message" from the drop down box) ... I'll make sure your message gets passed on xx
                          Debt is like any other trap, easy enough to get into, but hard enough to get out of.

                          It doesn't matter where your journey begins, so long as you begin it...

                          recte agens confido

                          ~~~~~

                          Any advice I provide is given without liability, if you are unsure please seek professional legal guidance.

                          I can be emailed if you need my help loading pictures/documents to your thread. My email address is Kati@legalbeagles.info
                          But please include a link to your thread so I know who you are.

                          Specialist advice can be sought via our sister site JustBeagle

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Judicial Review of Haringey's £125 Liability Order costs succeeds

                            Hiya
                            thank you for your reply, it wont let me its says something about waiting for my account to be activated?
                            Lavender2013

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Judicial Review of Haringey's £125 Liability Order costs succeeds

                              Originally posted by Lavender2013 View Post
                              Hiya
                              thank you for your reply, it wont let me its says something about waiting for my account to be activated?
                              Lavender2013
                              aaah ... you might need to make more posts before your PM facility gets activated :sorry
                              You could email me instead (kati@legalbeagles.info) with your username as the subject?
                              K xx
                              Debt is like any other trap, easy enough to get into, but hard enough to get out of.

                              It doesn't matter where your journey begins, so long as you begin it...

                              recte agens confido

                              ~~~~~

                              Any advice I provide is given without liability, if you are unsure please seek professional legal guidance.

                              I can be emailed if you need my help loading pictures/documents to your thread. My email address is Kati@legalbeagles.info
                              But please include a link to your thread so I know who you are.

                              Specialist advice can be sought via our sister site JustBeagle

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Judicial Review of Haringey's £125 Liability Order costs succeeds

                                For anyone following the Rev's pursuit of Haringey's iffy court costs there's an update and recap of events.


                                Council Tax Rev Paul Nicolson lost In High Court he takes Grant Thornton, Magistrates & Council to the Appeal Court

                                EDIT:

                                The judgment with the Reverend's comments:

                                [2016] EWHC 710 (Admin)
                                Last edited by outlawlgo; 12th April 2016, 09:18:AM.

                                Comment

                                View our Terms and Conditions

                                LegalBeagles Group uses cookies to enhance your browsing experience and to create a secure and effective website. By using this website, you are consenting to such use.To find out more and learn how to manage cookies please read our Cookie and Privacy Policy.

                                If you would like to opt in, or out, of receiving news and marketing from LegalBeagles Group Ltd you can amend your settings at any time here.


                                If you would like to cancel your registration please Contact Us. We will delete your user details on request, however, any previously posted user content will remain on the site with your username removed and 'Guest' inserted.
                                Working...
                                X