• 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.

Incredible view of High Court judge in £75 Council Tax costs

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

  • Incredible view of High Court judge in £75 Council Tax costs

    EDWARD WILLIAMS - and - EAST NORTHAMPTONSHIRE DISTRICT COUNCIL
    [2016] EWHC 470 (Admin)
    Last edited by outlawlgo; 20th March 2016, 09:44:AM. Reason: adding full ref
    Tags: None

  • #2
    Re: Incredible view of High Court judge in £75 Council Tax costs

    Why 'incredible' outlawgo ?

    ( do you know what happened with costs btw ?)
    #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


    • #3
      Re: Incredible view of High Court judge in £75 Council Tax costs

      Hi

      its interesting becaue of the questions the judge answers

      1. Question 1
        "Were we correct to find that the application for the liability order was valid when the summons included a request for costs?"


      1. Question 2
        "Were we correct in finding the Appellant liable on the basis of the evidence we heard and the certificate produced by the Council"


      1. Question 3
        "Were we right to conclude the costs reasonably incurred in this case amounted to £75"


      The answer to Question all is "Yes"

      and also, its quite helpfull for what am doing to have a judge make some form of judgement against the costs of LO, becuase that meens someone can check what he rules there, and mesure that against other coucils, Mine and @outlawlgo s council are terrible at these costs and just make them up
      crazy council ( as in local council,NELC ) as a member of the public, i don't get mad, i get even

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Incredible view of High Court judge in £75 Council Tax costs

        Apologies - I reread the case & my post was incorrect.

        I give up!

        c

        (Crossed posts with Crazy council, lol)
        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


        • #5
          Re: Incredible view of High Court judge in £75 Council Tax costs

          Hi

          , my interest is nealry all councils hid things in the charging figures , mine and outlawlgos council, hide mistakes and false accounts and charge the people that get LOs for the time/admin costs.

          I have 100 customers, I take LO action against 15 of them ( and it costs me ) , afterwards, i find that i should have really only taken action against 4. so

          I charge the 4 for all the time and costs it took me to correct the other 11. Even if the other 11 was entryly my fault

          This is how to hide figures from the externally audited SCR rate and manipluate the accuracy figures
          crazy council ( as in local council,NELC ) as a member of the public, i don't get mad, i get even

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Incredible view of High Court judge in £75 Council Tax costs

            No I saw it was interesting, and a sound judgment (IMV) but wasn't sure what the 'incredible' bit was...and in what context ( good incredible or bad incredible etc ?) sorry was just asking.xx
            #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


            • #7
              Re: Incredible view of High Court judge in £75 Council Tax costs

              @Crazy council & [MENTION=8136]outlawlgo[/MENTION]

              Isn't it all automated anyway - costs must be peanuts!
              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


              • #8
                Re: Incredible view of High Court judge in £75 Council Tax costs

                Originally posted by Amethyst View Post
                No I saw it was interesting, and a sound judgment (IMV) '
                Yes, whats interesting is the judge starts to give opionins on the costs, i have been looking for cases were they have talked about the cost to give me something to stand against,, our council is different, I have done this calculation properly for our council ( with teh help of my mate elvis ) , LOs costs between £ 17 - 23 .
                crazy council ( as in local council,NELC ) as a member of the public, i don't get mad, i get even

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Incredible view of High Court judge in £75 Council Tax costs

                  Originally posted by Crazy council View Post
                  Yes, whats interesting is the judge starts to give opionins on the costs, i have been looking for cases were they have talked about the cost to give me something to stand against,, our council is different, I have done this calculation properly for our council ( with teh help of my mate elvis ) , LOs costs between £ 17 - 23 .
                  Hi Crazy council

                  From your experience, how is the £75 divided up? (just being nosy, lol!)
                  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


                  • #10
                    Re: Incredible view of High Court judge in £75 Council Tax costs

                    i will write it up later, i did a study on it from 2007-2011 at NELC to get the figures accurate.

                    The costs, can only be the reasonable costs used in the application and administration of the LO between the summons and the appearance at court ( or LO issued ).

                    Paperwork costs for letters and notice
                    staff costs for administration of the accounts, after first default notice up to passing it to the baillif ( 2 weeks after LO )
                    a % towards the cost of teh IT and software
                    a % towards the offices costs for the time spent ( ONLY ) on liability orders
                    Court costs ( £ 3 per application )
                    Staff time for court appeaence

                    were its fudged ( at least at nelc ), is close to 50% of the LOs are removed/corrected over the next 5 years ( after the app ). So, even there inital caluclations of costs is way overcharged, worse still, those paying the fees, are paying for the staff time to correct there own mistakes.. if you understand
                    crazy council ( as in local council,NELC ) as a member of the public, i don't get mad, i get even

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Incredible view of High Court judge in £75 Council Tax costs

                      Originally posted by Amethyst View Post
                      No I saw it was interesting, and a sound judgment (IMV) but wasn't sure what the 'incredible' bit was...and in what context ( good incredible or bad incredible etc ?) sorry was just asking.xx
                      "Incredible" I see what you mean. Being ambiguous leaves room for manoeuvre, in this case for changing your mind if you make statements in haste. I'll stick with the meaning I originally intended though (bad).

                      To kick off with.....

                      Just looking at the first question regarding the summons and whether the costs should be stated as a fixed amount before the case is heard. One significant omission in my mind here is that the court has not inquired into whether the council has already applied the costs to the Appellant's account. The fact that the costs are applied by the time the summons is served makes paragraph 32 questionable, and the representations of the council before hand:

                      32. I accept that the order for costs did not fall to be made until after the point in time when the basis for the liability order had itself been established but that is no reason for not telling the recipient in advance what minimum claim for costs would be pursued by the Respondent if such a liability order were subsequently to be made....
                      Perhaps even more significant is why the court did not call into question the validity of Regulation 34(5) which effectively provides that the parties may agree costs prior to the case being heard. If it had, it would very much likely have come to the conclusion that they are ultra vires the Enabling Act. After-all, it is understood that conventionally a party who is successful in litigation is entitled to costs. The general rule being that costs follow the event and the determination is a matter of judicial discretion. When recovering unpaid sums of Council Tax, the power to award costs lies with the Court on hearing the complaint. (Section 64 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980)

                      I won't elaborate but anyone wishing to see what I mean, Annex C (around page 102) of this ("see link") and similar as a post on this thread ("see link").


                      ANNEX C

                      Statutory Instrument ultra vires

                      It has become evident from engaging further in this appeal that the Statutory Instrument, the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 (the “Regulations”) which provide that the parties may agree costs prior to the case being heard may be ultra vires the Enabling Act.

                      1. The primary legislation laying down the boundaries from which the Regulations derive is the Local Government Finance Act 1992 (the “1992 Act”). Schedule 4 of the 1992 Act provides the necessary powers to enable the Secretary of State, by Regulations, to make provision for the enforcement of Council Tax. The relevant powers conferred on the secretary of state to make provision for obtaining a court order are under paragraph 3 ('liability orders') of Schedule 4 of the 1992 Act.

                      2. ........
                      Note: In contrast, the Statutory Instrument which provides for costs in the comparable procedure for the recovery of Business Rates DO NOT provide that if, after the summons has been issued, the outstanding balance and an amount equal to reasonable costs incurred is paid or tendered to the authority, the application shall not be proceeded with.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Incredible view of High Court judge in £75 Council Tax costs

                        I don't know how the judge's logic works. See paragraph 66 of the judgment:

                        66. At one point during the hearing before me the Appellant sought to contend that the approach adopted by the Respondent had not been in accordance with the decision in paragraph 46 of Nicolson because the latter required the total annual cost to be divided by the number of summonses in the previous year rather than the number of liability orders made in the previous year. Since the liability orders made would be fewer than the number of summonses issued, the cost per case would have been increased by the Respondent's approach. Again, as the Appellant accepted, this was not an argument which had been raised in the Magistrates' Court. The Respondent opposed the introduction of this point on the grounds that it would require an investigation into the difference between the two outcomes. There was no application to amend the Case Stated to raise the new point and the argument was not further pursued. Had it been, on the basis of the submissions I did hear, I would have been inclined to accept the Respondent's submission that paragraph 46 of Nicolson was to be seen as guidance, rather than an absolute rule, and that an approach based on liability orders fell within the ambit of such guidance in any event.
                        "The Respondent opposed the introduction of this point on the grounds that it would require an investigation into the difference between the two outcomes.

                        Not much of an investigation required

                        It is stated in paragraph 65 that the calculation was based on a total cost of £266,102 which was then divided by the number of Liability Orders (3,496) to arrive at a "standard" cost per defendant.

                        £266,102 divided by 3,496 = £76.12

                        However the corresponding number of summonses was 4,052 and so..

                        £266,102 divided by 4,052 = £65.67

                        The Appellant was clearly correct and the costs were artificially increased by the Respondent's approach.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Incredible view of High Court judge in £75 Council Tax costs

                          Of course the liability order numbers would include those that have also received summonses. Thus there does need to be 2 separate calculations, one for up to the summons stage, one for the further costs of gaining a liability order. Of course both should be detailed enough to be subject to scrutiny.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Incredible view of High Court judge in £75 Council Tax costs

                            Originally posted by Adamna View Post
                            Of course the liability order numbers would include those that have also received summonses. Thus there does need to be 2 separate calculations, one for up to the summons stage, one for the further costs of gaining a liability order. Of course both should be detailed enough to be subject to scrutiny.
                            The judge appears to be understating the seriousness of the matter by the following contained in paragraph 71

                            This was, ultimately, a civil claim rather than a criminal trial. Accordingly, a degree of latitude should be shown to the nature of the evidence given.
                            Perhaps then, the issues that are not being properly scrutinised by the High Court would be better served by the attention of the Serious Fraud Office.

                            Paragraph 75 leaves me questioning my own ability to do simple mathematics because based on the figures we hold, the sum which is quoted as the summons costs in that experiment (cases where no hearing was required) should have been £62.86 not inflated by £10 (£72.86).

                            75. Although I do not base my decision on it, I observe that, even if the whole amount of £11,397 were excluded from the total it would make only a minor difference to the individual cost that could have been claimed against the Appellant. The costs for those cases where no hearing was required would become £72.86 and for those where a hearing was required would become..
                            £266,102 (less £11,397) divided by 4,052 = £62.86

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Incredible view of High Court judge in £75 Council Tax costs

                              The judge has exploited the opinion of Justice Andrews in paragraph 46 of Reverend Nicolson's case (see para 76), but without also considering in conjunction the provisions of the Statutory Instrument, which pretty much ensured that the Appellant did not succeed.

                              76. I accept the Respondent's submissions. The approach contemplated in paragraph 46 of Nicolson is one which takes and aggregates the relevant types of costs incurred in the previous year and divides it up by the number of previous or anticipated number of summonses and to provide an average figure. In my judgment, it is an inevitable consequence of that approach that some detailed types of cost will not necessarily have actually been incurred in the case of a specific defaulter, A, but will have been incurred in the case of other defaulters B, C and D. Provided that the "right types of costs and expenses are taken into account" (see paragraph 46 of Nicolson) that is sufficient. It follows that, if the inclusion of a Chip & Pin device is a reasonable category, or type, of cost to include in the aggregate, it is no answer in an individual case to show that such costs were not incurred in the specific case. Of course, the position would be otherwise if the Respondent had sought to prove its costs specifically by reference to a record of the costs incurred against the Appellant personally. But that is not this case. In this case the Respondent sought to demonstrate the level of costs reasonably incurred in obtaining the liability order against the Appellant by reference to the average cost of doing so against other defaulters. In my view that is consistent with the approach suggested in paragraph 46 of Nicolson.
                              Although the court was only concerned in this respect with the relatively small amount of expenditure attributed to the Chip & Pin device, the same principle applies to what is likely to be the majority of expenditure which was highlighted by the Appellant (see para 83) in his skeleton argument, "liaising with customers", "answering complaints" etc. These matters were not considered by the judge as they were not matters addressed in the Case Stated. Though which ever way you look at it, the fact that they were not considered means that the outcome is not representative of the facts.

                              What has been overlooked in taking para 46 of the Nicolson case is that if you were to take that approach, the standard sum would also have to be properly referable to the Regulations (regs 34 and 35). If there is any doubt as to what these regulations provide, clarification has been provided in the Council Tax Practice Note 9: Recovery and Enforcement, produced by the Department of the Environment (1993) and more recently in the 2013 Government good practice guide, for the collection of Council Tax arrears, which both state that

                              the amount claimed by way of costs in any individual case is no more than that reasonably incurred by the authority.
                              In that case, given that the amount claimed by way of costs in any individual case must be no more than that reasonably incurred by the billing authority, if the Council wanted to take advantage of streamlining the administration process by applying a standard sum in all cases, in order for it to fully comply with the regulations, it would need to forfeit each element of expenditure it incurs that is not common to every application.

                              In other words, a standard sum could not exceed that incurred by the authority in a case where the least expenditure is attributed, which would in practice relate to a taxpayer settling his outstanding debt on receipt of a summons without contacting the council on any issue (liaising with customers, answering complaints etc.). Deriving a figure therefore from 'the costs said to be reasonably incurred' which is split between an estimated number of summons (liability orders) does not comply with the regulations.

                              The least cost case is the only basis on which to determine a standard sum if the aim is to eliminate the administrative burden of calculating the costs in each case, whilst at the same time complying with the regulations which require that the costs be no more than that incurred by the authority in any individual case.

                              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