Council tax court summons for court costs.

JayJay1975

Freecall wrote: »

Talk about bar room lawyers, what utter rubbish and more importantly dangerous advice.

You obviously do not have any experience of a court room where Council Tax recovery action is taking place but I can assure you that every possible legal aspect which might cause problems with 'technicalities' is covered.

The Cheif Legal Officer of the collecting authority will even present minutes of the council meeting where the original CT was set along with their own letters of authority and ID to prove who they are as well as a host of other supporting documentation.

I suggest you look at the relevant legislation which is The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992.

Try reading sub-sections 5,6,7 & 8.

As a rule of thumb, all such legislation and processes work because they have to. If not then there would be mass non-payment of legal costs.

You sound like you work for a Council?

Yes I'm very aware of The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 but this does not change the fact that only a Justice, a Justices' Clerk or a member of the Justices staff can issue a Court Summons, NOT a member of the Local Councils staff.

I do also have experience of being in Court when Council Tax is being recovered, as I stated, I have been there 5 times now and every time I have challenged the costs and had them removed.

I have not and do not claim to be a Lawyer. I just have common sense and I am very thorough when I do my research. For instance, did you know that the Council 'hire' part of the Court and the required Court staff for the Morning / Afternoon and have 'bulk' hearings?(The Magistrates Court themselves told me this). The Magistrate is being paid by the Council so therefore is biased so it would not be a fair hearing. This is one of the points I raised on the day I attended the Court.

At the end of the day, the Law applies to everyone, even Local Councils. They do not follow the correct legal procedure in obtaining a Court Summons, it's all about making money to them and they are making millions every year from this.

The internet is full of useful information, you just need to interpret and use it in the right way to get the outcome you want.

As I said, I have had the costs removed 5 times now by challenging them. Why would they remove the costs if I wasn't on to their scam? Why would they do it 5 times?
I have advised several people since on what to say to the Council Officers and they have also been successful at getting the Court costs removed.

JayJay1975

KingS6 wrote: »

Is there any mainstream media coverage or third party evidence of this working?

No mainstream media coverage at all... Imagine if there was... I think the flood gates would open and millions of people would want their 'unlawful' costs back. I can imagine that would cripple every Council in the UK.

Do people still believe mainstream media???

Wayne_O_Mac

JayJay1975 wrote: »

Why would they remove the costs if I wasn't on to their scam? Why would they do it 5 times?

When someone who's clearly mental interacts with me, I find it's often easier to humour them than have an argument.

But that's irrelevant, you've clearly stuck it to the man with your one weird trick that qualified lawyers hate! Keep on raging against that machine!

CIS

There's always a 'new poster' who pops up every 6 months or so with a rant about the legality.

The bit about 'hiring' the court always gets me - the council are charged costs by the court to make an application, the same as if I or anyone else wanted to make an application for court services and was asked to pay the costs.

The issuing of summons is also another one - the court issue the summons (they have to approve them for issue) however it has been found quite legal for them to ask (and allow) the council to print and post the summons on their behalf.

In respect of the court costs then the court can refuse to approve costs at the hearing or at any time the council can choose not to persue the costs - some councils will do this as soon as anyone quibbles, others will refuse to do so under any circumstances. It's not some legal trick, it's simply down to policies and decisions by the court and council exercising their disretion.

Craig

Freecall

Spot on CIS. I don't know where these ideas start but once out there all sorts latch on to them because they think that it is a way of beating the system.

...... and so it goes on.

I really like this bit :-

JayJay1975 wrote: »

For instance, did you know that the Council 'hire' part of the Court and the required Court staff for the Morning / Afternoon and have 'bulk' hearings?

It mixes up the idea that by paying the relevant court fee as set by Parliament, the council somehow hires or buys the court with the idea that handling applications in bulk somehow diminishes the value of justice.

It is true that collection authorities do apply to the court 'in bulk' if we must use that term but in practice 99% of the people being chased for payment do not turn up. The few that do are always given a full opportunity to put their case including, if they wish, that costs should be waived. The system bends over backwards to be fair.


As a side issue, for anybody who does not know, all the authorities which are empowered to take action to recover money also tend to present their cases 'in bulk'. This includes the BBC for unpaid licence fees, the DVLA for Road Fund Licence and Continuous Insurance Enforcement as well as several other significant bodies.

Presumably JayJay1975 thinks that these all 'hire' the court for their own evil ends as well.

CIS

Freecall wrote: »

Presumably JayJay1975 thinks that these all 'hire' the court for their own evil ends as well.

If you'd ever been in Newcastle magistrates court on the Metro fines day (for no tickets) then you'd realise how 'evil' they are - at least if you listen to those who've turned up.

Craig

CIS

Freecall wrote: »

It is true that collection authorities do apply to the court 'in bulk' if we must use that term but in practice 99% of the people being chased for payment do not turn up. The few that do are always given a full opportunity to put their case including, if they wish, that costs should be waived. The system bends over backwards to be fair.

Exactly - on an average liability order court of about 1000-1200 applications we had about a dozen people turn up, so 1-2%. Out of these you maybe have 1 who wanted to go in to the court - the process would be explained to them and if they wanted to still see the magistrate then no-one stopped them.

In most cases when people turned up with a query they only wanted to speak with a council officer - they weren't interested in seeing the magistrates.

We may have been an unusual council but if we thought something was odd after speaking with the customer on the day we'd apply for an adjournment or withdraw the case at the court (Many times I'd already have a list of requested adjournments prepared if I thought there may be an issue to sort). On many occasions I'd be discussing a case at the court when my manager would shout over to say we'd just adjourn it anyway - his view was a delay to the next court of one or two cases wasn't going to do any harm.

Craig

mitch00uk

independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/retired-vicar-who-refused-to-pay-council-tax-as-matter-of-principle-wins-high-court-victory-over-10229437.html[/url]

please read this put www. infront

mitch00uk

The judge said the woman had been 'absolutely convinced' the youngster 'perceived himself as a girl' ( Getty Images )
A retired vicar who refused to pay council tax on a matter of principle has won a High Court victory over excessive costs.

Anti-poverty campaigner Paul Nicolson, 82, took a stand after discovering that millions of poor people could be getting unfair bills for costs run up by local authorities who take action to collect unpaid council tax.

Mr Nicolson, a retired Anglican vicar and veteran of the poll tax protests, took legal action after complaining that magistrates ruling on allegations of council tax non-payment were failing to check the accuracy of costs bills.

He claimed that the figures run up by his Labour-controlled London Borough of Haringey were being wrongly “lumped on” to legal costs bills and were a “penalty” unfairly imposed on the poor, in a case he said had national implications.

“I'm delighted,” said Mr Nicolson after the ruling. “It's game, set and match to the poor.”

He added: “I'm not a socialist. I'm a Christian. All I do is state the facts on poverty.”

For 16 years until 1999, Mr Nicolson was the real life Vicar of Dibley – the priest in the rural parish of Turville, Buckinghamshire, where Richard Curtis set his sitcom about a hapless female vicar.

The pensioner who moved to Tottenham in north London, had sold champagne before joining the church and fighting against unfair taxation. He said he began litigation in this case after not paying a council tax bill as a matter of principle.


He was then issued with a summons for non-payment of council tax by Haringey Council before magistrates in Tottenham made a 'liability order' against him and ordered him to pay £125 costs. He then asked a High Court judge to declare that magistrates failed to check the accuracy of the costs bill. Bosses at Haringey Council disputed his allegations, but Mrs Justice Andrews, who analysed evidence in a hearing at the High Court in London last month, ruled in Mr Nicolson's favour.

Mrs Justice Andrews said she had concluded that magistrates in Tottenham had not had “relevant information” before them when making a costs order against Mr Nicolson.


Mr Nicolson said he had mounted the challenge because a £125 costs bill was a “very big penalty” on top of “the inevitable council tax arrears” generated by thousands of benefits claimants in Haringey.And he said the case had nationwide implications because about three million liability orders were granted by magistrates every year to councils in England and Wales.

Mr Nicolson added: “The related question is - what is the point of enforcing the council tax against people whose incomes are so low that they cannot pay?”

A Haringey Council spokesperson said: “We accept the court’s decision to quash the costs order in this case as magistrates did not have the relevant information before them.

“We welcome that the judge accepted our broad approach to calculating costs to cover legal proceedings. We will now consider this ruling in greater detail

mitch00uk

( hmm council dont make up there own costs? they are charged £3 per case by the court in bulk, which has been ruled they are being charged to much, and in for a 9m windfull. yet they charge £90 costs my local fee's- explain this below please

---

A retired vicar who refused to pay council tax on a matter of principle has won a High Court victory over excessive costs.

Anti-poverty campaigner Paul Nicolson, 82, took a stand after discovering that millions of poor people could be getting unfair bills for costs run up by local authorities who take action to collect unpaid council tax.

Mr Nicolson, a retired Anglican vicar and veteran of the poll tax protests, took legal action after complaining that magistrates ruling on allegations of council tax non-payment were failing to check the accuracy of costs bills.

He claimed that the figures run up by his Labour-controlled London Borough of Haringey were being wrongly “lumped on” to legal costs bills and were a “penalty” unfairly imposed on the poor, in a case he said had national implications.

“I'm delighted,” said Mr Nicolson after the ruling. “It's game, set and match to the poor.”

He added: “I'm not a socialist. I'm a Christian. All I do is state the facts on poverty.”

For 16 years until 1999, Mr Nicolson was the real life Vicar of Dibley – the priest in the rural parish of Turville, Buckinghamshire, where Richard Curtis set his sitcom about a hapless female vicar.

The pensioner who moved to Tottenham in north London, had sold champagne before joining the church and fighting against unfair taxation. He said he began litigation in this case after not paying a council tax bill as a matter of principle.


He was then issued with a summons for non-payment of council tax by Haringey Council before magistrates in Tottenham made a 'liability order' against him and ordered him to pay £125 costs. He then asked a High Court judge to declare that magistrates failed to check the accuracy of the costs bill. Bosses at Haringey Council disputed his allegations, but Mrs Justice Andrews, who analysed evidence in a hearing at the High Court in London last month, ruled in Mr Nicolson's favour.

Mrs Justice Andrews said she had concluded that magistrates in Tottenham had not had “relevant information” before them when making a costs order against Mr Nicolson.


Mr Nicolson said he had mounted the challenge because a £125 costs bill was a “very big penalty” on top of “the inevitable council tax arrears” generated by thousands of benefits claimants in Haringey.And he said the case had nationwide implications because about three million liability orders were granted by magistrates every year to councils in England and Wales.

Mr Nicolson added: “The related question is - what is the point of enforcing the council tax against people whose incomes are so low that they cannot pay?”

A Haringey Council spokesperson said: “We accept the court’s decision to quash the costs order in this case as magistrates did not have the relevant information before them.

“We welcome that the judge accepted our broad approach to calculating costs to cover legal proceedings. We will now consider this ruling in greater detail