120% increase in Summons fee penalty for Council Tax

Dear North East Lincolnshire Council,

Can you provide me with a copy of the breakdown as supplied to the
Magistrate's Court to support your latest request for a Council Tax
Summons fee increase of almost 120%, which takes the previous cost
of £32 to the current £70?

Can justification be given to why, in a Council document listing
proposed savings, i.e. "Increase summons cost" – projected savings
of £188,000 for each of the following 4 years is forecasted when
such fees are to cover Council Tax recovery, not constitute savings
by way of income generation?

Yours faithfully,

Neil Gilliatt

Dear North East Lincolnshire Council,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of
Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of North East
Lincolnshire Council's handling of my FOI request '120% increase in
Summons fee penalty for Council Tax'.

It's difficult to believe that Councils can dictate to Magistrates'
Courts what costs the Council Tax payer incurs when council's take
court action against them.

In the absence of any apparent requirement to justify these costs
to the Magistrates' Court I would like North East Lincolnshire
Council to supply me with a breakdown itemising costs which will
provide evidence that the cost of court action taken against each
resident would total £70.

Important factors I would appreciate the council take into account
are:

i) that the cost paid to the Magistrate's court is £3 for each
person receiving court action.

ii) that hundreds of cases are typically processed at a single
court hearing with a bulk Liability Order and a single signature of
a Justice of the Peace.

iii) of these cases processed each month; 700 would represent a
typical number which would yield £46,900 after deductions to Her
Majesty's Court Service for the use of their facilities, and it
would not be too unrealistic an estimation to say £562,800 could be
generated in a year.

I'm aware that this entire court procedure may be bogus due to how
costs paid to the court have been described in the FOI reply,

i.e. "Costs collected also cover monies paid to Her Majesty's Court
Service for the use of their facilities"

This suggests that the Magistrate's Court is hired by the council;
my understanding of a court case is one where the court conducts
the hearing, not the those who bring about the complaint to the
court. Given that my FOI reply has given me reason to believe that
the entire court procedure may be bogus I would like North East
Lincolnshire Council to supply me with evidence that this court
process is legal.

The FOI reply also states that there are no longer costs for
liability order. Taking this into account the overall cost of
associated court costs has risen by 23%. By consolidating these
penalties and adding the further sum, this manoeuvre has
effectively added more than 23% to the potential income generated
because more residents will be caught out by the vastly increased
Summons penalty than would otherwise have been with the two stage
penalties that comprised both Summons and Liability Order fees.

If anything; combining the two penalties should have lowered the
overall cost of taking residents to court as there is less work for
the council and a greater number of residents caught out. This, I
believe, needs justifying.

The question that makes up the second part of my FOI has not been
answered because I consider the explanation to be fiction,

"Can justification be given to why, in a Council document listing
proposed savings, i.e. "Increase summons cost" – projected savings
of £188,000 for each of the following 4 years is forecasted when
such fees are to cover Council Tax recovery, not constitute savings
by way of income generation?"

The following council document,

http://www.nelincs.gov.uk/committees/Fun...
(page 2 fourth item), scheduling a series of "saving proposals",
has clearly written under a sub-heading, "income generation", a
proposal to "increase summons cost".

This increase was agreed at a meeting on the 17th of February where
elected members had the opportunity to scrutinise the detail behind
these proposals at a meeting in January; unfortunately it took
place in private session as the details were deemed to be exempt
from publication under the Access to information under the Local
Government Act 1972.

Because of the above I believe that the following response serves
as a desperate measure to defend the council's action by playing
one group of residents off against another. Or, put another way,
deviously using those who are whiter than white as a moral shield
for the purpose of implementing this income generating scheme.

"The increase in summons costs does not represent `income
generation' but a saving that can be made in the cost of the
delivery of the service, that would otherwise ultimately
be passed on to the Council Tax payers of North East Lincolnshire."

There are other reasons that reinforce my belief that the fees do
not accurately represent the cost of recovery.

The following council document,

http://www.nelincs.gov.uk/committees/Fun...
clearly demonstrates that a 50% increase in the Summons fee penalty
directly funded extra members of staff to clear a backlog of work
caused by problems with its IT system. An important point worth
noting is that the Summons penalty, increased by 50%, didn't resume
to the level prior to the IT issues. Another example of the Summons
penalty being used as an income generating tool at the expense of
those residents caught out by them.

For the reasons explained above and taking into account the
evidence supplied in the council documents I would like North East
Lincolnshire Council to convincingly verify the reason for these
increases if not as a income generating exercise.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is
available on the Internet at this address:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/12...

Yours faithfully,

Neil Gilliatt

Dear PPD - FOI,

I have reason to believe that in addition to the points I have
outlined in my request for an internal review, I have either been
given incorrect information to my FOI request, or the automated
Summons document sent out by the council to potentially thousands
of its residents includes an incorrect warning.

It is written in the FOI reply that:

".....The Magistrates Court were informed by letter of our
intention to increase summons costs (there are no longer costs for
a liability order."

And I believe the council's automated Summons document warns:

".....If the total amount outstanding as stated above including
summons costs is paid to North East Lincolnshire Council before the
date of the hearing, all further proceedings will be stopped.
However, if a Liability Order is granted the Council will apply for
further costs of £25.00 being reasonable costs incurred."

I have just one further observation; the council's Summons
documents appear to be been sent from the Council rather than the
Magistrate's Court, due to the return addresses on these envelopes
being the council's.

Despite these documents originating from the council, they begin
with the following rather misleading paragraph:

"Complaint has been made before me, the undersigned Clerk to the
Justices, by The Executive Director Business Services of North East
Lincolnshire Council......."

These documents are dated and a Signature of the Clerk to the
Justices doctored on to them.

Taking this into consideration I would also like North East
Lincolnshire Council to provide information to support that sending
out these Summonses is legal bearing in mind the following
legislation and that the council sends out there own.

1)MAGISTRATES’ COURTS ACT 1980 Part II

Civil Jurisdiction and Procedure

Jurisdiction to issue summons and deal with complaints

51- Issue of summons on complaint

Where a complaint relating to a person is made to a justice of the
peace, the justice of the peace may issue a summons to the person
requiring him to appear before a magistrates' court to answer to
the complaint.

2)THE COUNCIL TAX (ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT REGULATIONS 1992

PART VI – ENFORCEMENT

Application for liability order

34. —

(2) The application is to be instituted by making complaint to a
justice of the peace, and requesting the issue of a summons
directed to that person to appear before the court to show why he
has not paid the sum which is outstanding.

3)ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE ACT 1970 – Part V

Miscellaneous Provisions

40 Punishment for unlawful harassment of debtors.

(1)A person commits an offence if, with the object of coercing
another person to pay money claimed from the other as a debt due
under a contract, he—

(d) utters a document falsely represented by him to have some
official character or purporting to have some official character
which he knows it has not.

Yours sincerely,

Neil Gilliatt

Dear PPD - FOI,

Thank you for your response to the Freedom of Information review,
however, I consider the whole response to be unsatisfactory and it
is clear to me that the whole response has been an exercice in
evading or completely ignoring the requests.

I'd like for a start to get a more satisfactory answer to my
request which corresponds with your responses, items 1, 2 & 3.

Regarding items 1 & 2:

We had already established that the council do not have to justify
costs to the Magistrate's Court. Therefore my request under the
Freedom of Information review did not refer to the council's
obligation to justify costs to the court, nor did it require
reference to the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement)
regulations 1992. Though as this has been brought up I can comment
that the costs relating to either Summons or Liability Orders are
referred to three times in S.I. 613/1992, i.e. Regulations (5), (7)
and (8). However, in all three regulations, what is specified are
costs reasonably incurred by the authority/applicant.

It is the reasonable costs incurred by the authority that I
requested the Council supply me, which would give a breakdown and
itemise costs to provide evidence that the cost of court action
taken against each resident would total £70.

I will emphasise that the request had nothing to do with what the
court requires, or S.I. 613/1992 Regulations. It was my unique
request that would take into account that a possible £46,900 could
be obtained by the council, with a corresponding £2,100 being put
the Court's way, at a single court hearing with only a signature of
a Justice of the Peace.

I can only decipher to a certain degree, the Revenues budget,
supplied in the review response. It only tells me that there are
three categories:

A) Control & Monitoring

B) Debt Collection and

C) Council Tax;

which have allocated 20%, 100% and 50% respectively of an initial
total revenue expenditure budget of £507,000, £738,500 less
(121,800) and £826,900 leaving £101,400, £616,700 and £413,450
which corresponds to the £1,131,550 figure for the annual budget
for all activity associated with recovery.

This is an unacceptable response and constitutes nothing like an
itemised breakdown providing evidence that the cost of court action
taken against each resident would total £70.

The obvious inconsistencies which can be spotted immediately point
to these (smoke screen) figures, being supplied with the intention
of confusing me into accepting them. I don't accept them; one
inconsistency is that it states that the figures specifically
relate to all activity associated with recovery of Council Tax and
Business rates. It goes on and describes the 2011/12 Revenues
budget figures as more generally "debt recovery". Finally it states
that the figures are attributable to council tax recovery.

It is unclear what type of recovery these figures actually
represent. It's unclear if VAT paid to bailiff companies, which can
be reclaimed, make up any of these figures.

There is no explanation why £616,700 is attributable to debt
collection when no payment is made to bailiff companies by the
council.

There is nothing explaining why 20% and 50% represent the
proportion of costs attributable to recovery with the categories,
'Control and Monitoring' and 'Council Tax' , or for that matter the
significance of these categories with regards their budgets.

Regarding item 3:

If you did not want me to interpret that the Magistrates Court is
hired by the Council, maybe stating that "Costs collected also
cover monies paid to Her Majesty's Court Service for the use of
their facilities", was a mistake.

The matter I raised here was more specifically about the council
paying the Magistrate's Court for using their facilities than the
charge made by the Magistrates Court. The bigger concern is the
appearance of the council taking on the role of the Court.

Perhaps my questions regarding the legality of the Court process
are appropriately directed to the council rather than HMCS.
Everything indicates that the council are acting on behalf of the
court in this process; I believe it states on the Summons document
that North East Lincolnshire Council should be contacted, and not
the Court.

Yours sincerely,

Neil Gilliatt

Dear PPD - FOI,

I'd like to clarify that when I referred to the Council Tax
(Administration and Enforcement) regulations 1992 for "costs
reasonably incurred", I was specifically referring to 34(5)(b),
(7)(b) and (8) of S.I. 613/1992 Regulations.

Yours sincerely,

Neil Gilliatt

Dear PPD - FOI,

Following on from my response to your Internal review;

Regarding item 4:

I feel you have pointlessly answered a question that has not even
been asked. Maybe if I put to you the following question your
response will not have been in vain:

Q. In what manner did the council decide to increase the summons
charge and with whose agreement?

A. "The decision to increase the summons charge and make no
subsequent charge for a liability order was agreed by members
following public consultation in relation to the budget proposals."

Now if you could please supply me with the information required to
justify that the overall associated court costs has risen by 23%.
Also justify the strategy of consolidating these penalties, which
will have the effect of adding substantially more than the 23%
added to the overall associated court costs.

Because more residents will be caught out by the increased Summons
penalty than with the previous two stage process; combining the two
penalties would more logically have called for a decrease in the
fee.

Why has their been an increase when the combination of the fees
themselves, constitutes an increase in revenue?

Yours sincerely,

Neil Gilliatt

Dear PPD - FOI,

Following on from my response to your Internal review;

Regarding item 5:

I feel again that you have pointlessly answered a question that has
not even been asked. Maybe if I put to you the following question
it will appear a little less like you are wasting everyone's time
by avoiding questions:

Q. How do court costs received compare with the overall cost of
recovery?

A. "Income received from court costs is substantially less than the
overall cost of recovery, see point 2"

Would you please respond to the following, which you avoided on the
first two requests:

"Can justification be given to why, in a Council document listing
proposed savings, i.e. "Increase summons cost" – projected savings
of £188,000 for each of the following 4 years is forecasted when
such fees are to cover Council Tax recovery, not constitute savings
by way of income generation?"

The following council document,

http://www.nelincs.gov.uk/committees/Fun...
(page 2 fourth item), scheduling a series of "saving proposals",
has clearly written under a sub-heading, "income generation", a
proposal to "increase summons cost".

This increase was agreed at a meeting on the 17th of February where
elected members had the opportunity to scrutinise the detail behind
these proposals at a meeting in January; unfortunately it took
place in private session as the details were deemed to be exempt
from publication under the Access to information under the Local
Government Act 1972.

Because of the above I believe that the following response serves
as a desperate measure to defend the council's action by playing
one group of residents off against another. Or, put another way,
deviously using those who are whiter than white as a moral shield
for the purpose of implementing this income generating scheme.

"The increase in summons costs does not represent `income
generation' but a saving that can be made in the cost of the
delivery of the service, that would otherwise ultimately
be passed on to the Council Tax payers of North East Lincolnshire."

There are other reasons that reinforce my belief that the fees do
not accurately represent the cost of recovery.

The following council document,

http://www.nelincs.gov.uk/committees/Fun...
clearly demonstrates that a 50% increase in the Summons fee penalty
directly funded extra members of staff to clear a backlog of work
caused by problems with its IT system. An important point worth
noting is that the Summons penalty, increased by 50%, didn't resume
to the level prior to the IT issues. Another example of the Summons
penalty being used as an income generating tool at the expense of
those residents caught out by them.

For the reasons explained above and taking into account the
evidence supplied in the council documents I would like North East
Lincolnshire Council to convincingly verify the reason for these
increases if not as a income generating exercise.

Yours sincerely,

Neil Gilliatt

Dear PPD - FOI,

Following on from my response to your Internal review;

Regarding Email of 14 May:

I refer to your comment that "Regulations relating to the
authorisation and issue of a summons are contained in the Council
Tax (Administration and Enforcement) regulations 1992."

I believe you are referring to Regulation 34(2) which states:

"The application is to be instituted by making complaint to a
justice of the peace, and requesting the issue of a summons
directed to that person to appear before the court to show why he
has not paid the sum which is outstanding."

In my opinion there is a clear distinction between the council
requesting the issue of a summons and them sending out their own.

You also state that the task of signing a summons can be performed
by the use of a facsimile signature of the justice of the peace or
the justice's clerk on a rubber stamp (R v Brentford Justices ex
parte Catlin 1975). I did not request the method which was used to
doctor the signatures onto the summons, I simply stated that they
were doctored onto them. Though as you have referred to this case,
there are some interesting points most notably by Lord Widgery C.J

Regina v. Brentford Justices, Ex parte Catlin [1975]

"....It must however be remembered that before a summons or warrant
is issued the information must be laid before a magistrate and he
must go through the judicial exercise of deciding whether a summons
or warrant ought to be issued or not. If a magistrate authorises
the issue of a summons without having applied his mind to the
information then he is guilty of dereliction of duty and if in any
particular justices' clerk's office a practice goes on of summonses
being issued without information being laid before the magistrate
at all, then a very serious instance of maladministration arises
which should have the attention of the authorities without
delay...."

"A decision by magistrates whether to issue a summons pursuant to
information laid involves the exercise of a judicial function, and
is not merely administrative."

Given that the number of these summonses run into several hundred
at any given hearing, and that the council send out their own, I'd
say it was more than reasonable to suspect very serious instances
of maladministration as in those mentioned above.

Finally you refer to Regulation 35(2) which states:

"A summons issued under regulation 34(2) may be served on a person—

(c) by sending it by post to him at his usual or last known place
of abode....."

There is no mention that the council, under any agreement with the
magistrate's court, should be allowed to send out the summonses on
behalf of them. Anyway, why would there be a need to, if the
documents have been sent to the magistrate to exercise his judicial
function and receive the facsimile signature of the justice of the
peace or the justice's clerk from a rubber stamp?

Yours sincerely,

Neil Gilliatt

Dear PPD - FOI,

Please will you indicate whether or not you are going to address
the further issues I raised with regards your internal review, as
this will affect my decision whether or not to contact the
Information Commissioner's Office for an independent review.

Yours sincerely,

Neil Gilliatt

Dear PPD - FOI,

I will list specific requests under the references you have
supplied.

• 26 May 2011 21:33 Subject: Re: FOI request 20110505 Internal
Review

To enable the required response, please note all contents of the
above referenced email and the internal review mail of 10 May in
answering the following:

1. Please supply me with a breakdown itemising costs which will
provide evidence that the cost of court action taken against each
resident would total £70.

2. Explain the figures you supplied. Re; 2011/12 Revenues budget
(debt recovery).

3. Supply evidence that the council tax court process is legal.

NOTE: The following additional information needs taking into
account to answering the above.

Despite the Summons document relating to non-payment of council
tax, stating the following:

'You are hereby summoned to appear on [date] at [time] before the
Magistrates sitting at The Magistrate's Court ......"

On arriving at the Court's premises you are instructed to wait for
the council's court enforcement manager – a council official who is
unrelated to the court – who subsequently collects the relatively
low number of residents who actually attend the court, and takes
them off to a room in the court building, presumably hired by the
council, for the purpose of intervening with the court process.

Because they don't know any better the court attendees follow court
staff's instructions and wait for the council's court enforcement
manager to collect them.

If you stand your ground and insist that you have been summoned to
appear before the Magistrates, and not a council official, you will
be told that the normal procedure is to see the council official.

If you stand your ground to the point that they have no option but
allow you a court hearing there will be several attempts by court
staff to persuade you to give in and see the court official.

You will be told that the summons is actually from the council; a
ploy obviously intended to put you off having your case heard, but
more seriously an indication that a crime has been committed in
relation to the summons document. Only through persistently
standing your ground will you get a hearing in front of the
Magistrates.

This procedure is so engineered to deter any actual court hearings
despite thousands of residents being summoned to appear before the
Magistrates each year.

• 27 May 2011 11:27 Subject: Re: FOI request 20110505 Internal
Review

To enable the required response, please note all contents of the
above referenced email and the internal review mail of 10 May in
answering the following:

1. Please supply me with information that justifies a 23% increase
in the overall associated court costs when the consolidation of the
former two stage penalty structure in itself would have effectively
increased revenue.

2. Please supply me with information to justify why consolidating
these penalties, has not warranted a decrease in the overall
associated court costs.

• 27 May 2011 12:02 Subject: Re: FOI request 20110505 Internal
Review

To enable the required response, please note all contents of the
above referenced email and the internal review mail of 10 May in
answering the following:

1. Please supply me with information to justify why, in a Council
document listing proposed savings, i.e. "Increase summons cost" –
projected savings of £188,000 for each of the following 4 years is
forecasted, when such fees are to cover Council Tax recovery, not
constitute savings by way of income generation?

2. Please supply me with information to justify why, in a Council
document proposing staffing budgets – a 50% increase in the Summons
penalty was proposed to pay for IT system issues when such fees are
to cover Council Tax recovery, not compensating for council's
cock-ups?

• 27 May 2011 12:02 Subject: Re: FOI request 20110505 Internal
Review

To enable the required response, please note all contents of the
above referenced email and the internal review mail of 14 May in
answering the following:

1. Please supply me with information to justify how North East
Lincolnshire Council thinks it is legal to send out the council tax
Summonses, bearing in mind the following legislation.

MAGISTRATES’ COURTS ACT 1980 Part II

Civil Jurisdiction and Procedure

Jurisdiction to issue summons and deal with complaints

51- Issue of summons on complaint

Where a complaint relating to a person is made to a justice of the
peace, the justice of the peace may issue a summons to the person
requiring him to appear before a magistrates' court to answer to
the complaint.

THE COUNCIL TAX (ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT REGULATIONS 1992

PART VI – ENFORCEMENT

Application for liability order

34. —(2) The application is to be instituted by making complaint to
a justice of the peace, and requesting the issue of a summons
directed to that person to appear before the court to show why he
has not paid the sum which is outstanding.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE ACT 1970 – Part V

Miscellaneous Provisions

40 Punishment for unlawful harassment of debtors.

(1)A person commits an offence if, with the object of coercing
another person to pay money claimed from the other as a debt due
under a contract, he—

(d) utters a document falsely represented by him to have some
official character or purporting to have some official character
which he knows it has not.

2. Please supply me with information that justifies North East
Lincolnshire Council is not involved jointly with HMCS in serious
instances of maladministration regarding the hundreds of summonses
processed at any given hearing.

Yours sincerely,

Neil Gilliatt

Dear PPD - FOI,

Clearly there will be no intelligible information gained from your
automated system, so designed to spew out programmed decisions when
posed with awkward questions. The system's "spineless feature" – so
often triggered when not having the balls to honestly tackle
requests – is at risk of being overused to the extent that a
complete farce is made of the service.

For fear of allowing you the satisfaction of concocting further
responses I will not attempt to obtain anymore answers from you as
this is obviously a waste of time.

However, I think it should be said that despite stating on several
occasions that you had already dealt with various issues as part of
the Internal Review /original response, you in fact had not.

This approach of fobbing off questions you feel uncomfortable with
or are instructed not to address is not particularly clever and I
should think fools very few.

I have noticed you have considered none of my comments when dealing
with my FOI request and although I don't expect any sense from you
with respect to this FOI I will make an effort to seek out that
North East Lincolnshire Council are made accountable for increasing
penalty costs with no justification.

With respect to the 50% increase in the Summons penalty paying for
IT system issues, it appears very convenient that information
regarding the decision made by Cabinet a number of years ago is no
longer held.

Like this recent increase, it was a convenient way of raising
revenue, and without any justification. This is an example
demonstrating that the council does as it likes, and whenever there
is a need to instantaneously raise revenue, these penalty fees –
which make up part of its range of income generating methods – can
be conveniently called upon, and with apparently no need to justify
them.

If like you say information is no longer held, this strongly
suggests we have an incompetently run council which will no doubt
aggrieve the majority of residents paying council bosses their
salaries.

Yours sincerely,

Neil Gilliatt

Dear PPD - FOI,

I sent the following correspondence to the Information
Commissioner's Office on June 24, 2011.

Could you please acknowledge whether or not you have been contacted
regarding the complaint?

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF

24/06/11

Dear Sir/Madam

Re: Independent review of FOI request to NE LINC’S Council – Ref
number 20110505

I made a freedom of information request to North East Lincolnshire
Council. The details can be found on the “what do they know”
website at the following address:

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/12...

The questions I posed, admittedly, were likely to attract an
evasive reply. Nevertheless, I believe the taxpayer is fully
entitled to openness where issues such as those in the request are
concerned.

The issues were skirted around in the first instance and additional
requests, as they became relevant, were also evaded.

I believe local authorities should be accountable and their
approach in dealing with members of the public demonstrates that
there is no evidence of that.

My experience with North East Lincolnshire’s responses to FOI
requests and in general gives me the impression that they are
entirely unaccountable.

I have enclosed a page from a council document “Savings Proposals”
which you can see for yourself that the increase in summons cost,
equating to £188,000 per year savings are listed without any doubt
as Income Generation. However, the Council deny in their responses
that this penalty increase represents income generation despite the
evidence to the contrary.

The content of this letter represents only a fraction of the issues
raised in the FOI request and so ask that you refer to the “what do
they know” website for further details.

Please don’t hesitate to ask if you require further details.

Yours sincerely,

Neil Gilliatt

Dear PPD - FOI,

For your records, the following emails relate to the complaint made
to the Information Commissioner's Office regarding request
20110505.

Yours sincerely,

Neil Gilliatt

07 December 2011

Case Reference Number FS50400874

Dear Mr Gillat

I write further to the ICO’s letter to you of 02 August 2011. Your
complaint about your information request to North East Lincolnshire
Council (NELC) has now been allocated to me.

As I understand it you requested information from NELC on 02 May
2011. You requested

“Can you provide me with a copy of the breakdown as supplied to the
Magistrate's Court to support your latest request for a Council Tax
Summons fee increase of almost 120%, which takes the previous cost
of £32 to the current £70? [Request A]

Can justification be given to why, in a Council document listing
proposed savings, i.e. "Increase summons cost" – projected savings
of £188,000 for each of the following 4 years is forecasted when
such fees are to cover Council Tax recovery, not constitute savings
by way of income generation?” [Request B]

NELC responded on 10 May 2011 explaining

Request A

“There has not been a `breakdown' supplied to the Magistrates Court
so we cannot supply you with a copy of this. The Magistrates Court
were informed by letter of our intention to increase summons costs
(there are no longer costs for a liability order)… [Request B]

Request B

…The costs raised are to cover the cost of Council Tax collection
and recovery. This includes the technological systems in place and
employment of staff. Costs collected also cover monies paid to Her
Majesty's Court Service for the use of their facilities. The monies
raised from costs are not greater than the cost of the service. The
increase in summons costs does not represent `income generation'
but a saving that can be made in the cost of the delivery of the
service, that would otherwise ultimately be passed on to the
Council Tax payers of North East Lincolnshire.”

Following your complaint the ICO contacted NELC to enquire about
its handling of your request. NELC says it did not apply any
exemptions from section 2 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000
(the FOIA) when it responded to your request.

NELC has explained that as well as a request of an internal review
of the handling of the above requests you also submitted nine other
email requests. NELC says that these subsequent requests were for
statements or justifications of actions the response to which
required the council to create new information.

The right of access at section 1 FOIA relates to information which
is already in existence at the time of a request. The FOIA would
therefore not oblige NELC to create information simply to respond
to questions you ask.

Given that it appears the NELC has responded to your request, and
did not exempt any of the information I would be grateful if you
could clarify the scope of your complaint. For example are you
complaining that the NELC has failed to provide information it
holds in relation to requests A and B?

Please respond to this email within 20 working days.

Yours sincerely

Lead Case Officer - Complaints Resolution (Group 2)

Information Commissioner’s Office

Wycliffe House,
Water Lane,
Wilmslow,
Cheshire
SK9 5AF

Dear Lead Case Officer - Complaints Resolution (Group 2)

7 December 2011

I have looked through the various emails and although there is a
lot NELC has to answer to, I doubt if they will be obliged to
supply the information under the Freedom of Information Act.

I have therefore identified the data which the council should hold
as recorded information in order to comply with R34(5)(b) & (7)(b)
of the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations
1992. These sub-headings relate to the costs involved which are
reasonably incurred by the council in recovering council tax and
correspond to the summons and liability order penalties
subsequently charged to the council taxpayer.

The information initially supplied as per your email:

Request A

“There has not been a `breakdown' supplied to the Magistrates Court
so we cannot supply you with a copy of this. The Magistrates Court
were informed by letter of our intention to increase summons costs
(there are no longer costs for a liability order).

Request B

…The costs raised are to cover the cost of Council Tax collection
and recovery. This includes the technological systems in place and
employment of staff. Costs collected also cover monies paid to Her
Majesty's Court Service for the use of their facilities. The monies
raised from costs are not greater than the cost of the service. The
increase in summons costs does not represent `income generation'
but a saving that can be made in the cost of the delivery of the
service, that would otherwise ultimately be passed on to the
Council Tax payers of North East Lincolnshire.”

Its response to Request A is an indication that the council is a
law unto itself and appears to dictate to the court what it will
charge residents. However, I appreciate this is of no interest to
the ICO.

Its response to Request B is clearly unsatisfactory. It only lists
where money is spent but doesn't supply data which must be held for
the purpose of complying with the council tax regulations.

The information supplied "Request B" clearly shows that they are
not serious about supplying accurate data for the following
reasons:

– It refers to revenue raised through penalties to cover the cost
of the entire council tax collection operation.

– It mentions that revenue raised through penalties covers monies
paid to Her Majesty's court service for the use of their
facilities, despite it saying in its response to "Request A" that
"there are no longer costs for a liability order".

– It states that the increase in summons costs does not represent
'income generation'. This is at odds with their budget proposals
that lists a forecasted £752,000 savings over the following 4
years, achieved by the additional income arising from raising the
summons fee. (page 2 of the document under "income generation")

http://www.nelincs.gov.uk/committees/Fun...

In my FOI review email of 10 May I requested a breakdown in the
hope I would get some information in the form that would make some
sense.

They supplied data making no apparent sense. I deciphered this the
best I could and asked for certain points to be clarified. Still
the council had not supplied the requested information and did not
clarify their response.

The annual budget for all activity associated with recovery of
Council Tax and Business rates amounts to approximately £1.1
million.

2011/12 Revenues budget (debt recovery)

A0184 Control & Monitoring

Total revenue expenditure budget – £507,000

(£) recharged income – £0

Percentage recovery work – 20%

Cost attributable CT recovery – £101,400

A0187 Debt Collection
Total revenue expenditure budget – £738,500

(£) recharged income – (£121,800)*

Percentage recovery work – 100%

Cost attributable CT recovery – £616,700

A0191 Council Tax

Total revenue expenditure budget – £826,900

(£) recharged income – £0

Percentage recovery work – 50%

Cost attributable CT recovery – £413,450

Total £1,131,550

*cost of sundry debt collection recharged to other directorates

This doesn’t represent an itemised breakdown providing evidence
that the cost of court action taken against each resident would
total £70.

Obvious inconsistencies can be spotted immediately and point to
these figures, being supplied with the intention of confusing
anyone trying to decipher them. Firstly it states that the figures
specifically relate to all activity associated with recovery of
Council Tax and Business rates. It goes on and describes the
2011/12 Revenues budget figures as more generally "debt recovery".
Finally it states that the figures are attributable only to council
tax recovery.

It is unclear what recovery these figures actually represent. It's
unclear if VAT paid to bailiff companies, which can be reclaimed
make up any of these figures.

There is no explanation why £616,700 is attributable to debt
collection when no payment is supposedly made to bailiff companies
by the council.

There is nothing explaining why 20% and 50% represent the
proportion of costs attributable to recovery with the categories,
'Control and Monitoring' and 'Council Tax', or for that matter the
significance of these categories with regards their budgets.

We seem to be a long way from getting the true costs incurred by
the authority for the recovery of council tax and business
rates.....

In summary to clarify the scope of my complaint I am complaining
that NELC has failed to provide information it holds in relation to
"Request B" and "Request A", particularly the breakdown of fees,
but not of course "as supplied to the Magistrates' court" as they
have stated they don't do this.

Yours sincerely

N. Gilliatt

21 December 2011

Case Reference Number FS50400874

Dear Mr Gilliatt

Thank you for your email of 07 December 2011.

I note that your complaint is restricted to the requests I
identified in my previous correspondence as Requests A and B. I
therefore contacted the public authority to ask it to explain its
handling of these requests. The public authority has responded
saying:

Request A: Can you provide me with a copy of the breakdown as
supplied to the Magistrate's Court to support your latest request
for a Council Tax Summons fee increase of almost 120%, which takes
the previous cost of £32 to the current £70?

As previously stated North East Lincolnshire Council have not
supplied the Magistrates Court with a `breakdown' of the increased
summons costs. We do not hold a breakdown for the calculation of
the £70.00 fee, as it was based on comparisons with the fees
charged by neighbouring authorities (including Hull City Council
and East Riding of Yorkshire Council). The figure of £70 was then
compared against national averages, and as previously identified
checked to ensure that the monies raised from costs would not be
greater than the cost of the service.

I trust that this explanation answers Mr Gilliatt's query in
relation to the adoption by the Council of a Council Tax Summons
fee of £70, and confirms that we do not hold a breakdown of the
calculation of the fee.

Request B: Can justification be given to why, in a Council document
listing proposed savings, i.e. "Increase summons cost" – projected
savings of £188,000 for each of the following 4 years is forecasted
when such fees are to cover Council Tax recovery, not constitute
savings by way of income generation?

We have previously informed Mr Gilliatt that the 'The costs raised
are to cover the cost of Council Tax collection and recovery. This
includes the technological systems in place and employment of
staff. Costs collected also cover monies paid to Her Majesty's
Court Service for the use of their facilities. The monies raised
from costs are not greater than the cost of the service. The
increase in summons costs does not represent `income generation'
but a saving that can be made in the cost of the delivery of the
service, that would otherwise ultimately be passed on to the
Council Tax payers of North East Lincolnshire.'

As stated the costs raised from the increased Summons costs are to
cover the cost of recovering Council Tax, and do not represent
`income generation' but a saving that can be made in the cost of
the delivery of the service for the benefit of all Council Tax
payers of North East Lincolnshire. We hope that this clears up any
misunderstanding Mr Gilliatt may have been caused by the document
to which he refers, and that he is now satisfied the costs raised
relate solely to covering the cost in part of Council Tax
collection and recovery incurred by the Council and not income
generation.

I would be grateful if you could confirm whether, having received
the above, you consider the public authority has now provided the
information it holds which falls within the scope of your request.

Yours sincerely

Lead Case Officer - Complaints Resolution (Group 2)

Dear Lead Case Officer - Complaints Resolution (Group 2)

Thank you for your email regarding North East Lincolnshire
Council's response.

I have read the council's reply which basically reiterates its
initial response, and is, as was then, meaningless. For this reason
I have taken the trouble to query its response both through its own
review and the ICO.

Isn't there any way pressure can be put on the council to provide a
meaningful response, which has relevance to the specific details
the requester has put to it?

Yours sincerely

N. Gilliatt

Dear PPD - FOI,

Can you please confirm I have interpreted correctly, the raw data
the council supplied in its 26 May 2011 internal review response to
my Freedom of Information request?

===+===+===+===+===+===+===+===+===

2011/12 REVENUES BUDGET (debt recovery)

A0184 CONTROL & MONITORING

Total revenue expenditure budget – £507,000
£ recharged income – £0
Percentage recovery work – 20%
Cost attributable CT recovery – £101,400

A0187 DEBT COLLECTION

Total revenue expenditure budget – £738,500
£ recharged income – (£121,800)*
Percentage recovery work – 100%
Cost attributable CT recovery – £616,700

A0191 COUNCIL TAX

Total revenue expenditure budget – £826,900
£ recharged income – £0
Percentage recovery work – 50%
Cost attributable CT recovery – £413,450

TOTAL £1,131,550

*cost of sundry debt collection recharged to other directorates

===+===+===+===+===+===+===+===+===

Could you also confirm whether or not the following assumptions are
correct?

Under the heading "A0187 DEBT COLLECTION", total revenue
expenditure budget (£738,500).

This is approximately equal to the figure retained by the council's
bailiff contractor, with respect the fees collected from debtors.

This amount is subsequently invoiced to the Council so that it can
pay the appropriate VAT element of which can be claimed back, as is
standard operating practice with local authorities.

Assuming this is the case and the council's figures have been
"fiddled" to distort the costs reasonably incurred for recovery, we
could revise the costs.

Considering the "DEBT COLLECTION" costs alone, we could
provisionally update the council's total and say this was:

TOTAL £514,850

After all, the council has said it does not pay bailiff firms to
enforce payment of council tax.

Yours sincerely,

Neil Gilliatt

Dear PPD - FOI,

Thank you for your email of 19 January 2012.

The information has been presented in such a way that making
assumptions is the only option open to someone wishing to decipher
its meaning.

Perhaps if just the smallest amount of effort went into presenting
information in an understandable format, there would be less need
for guess work.

You say:

"no further comment will be made in relation to your assumptions".

Thanks so much for your cooperation.

Yours sincerely,

Neil Gilliatt

Dear PPD - FOI,

===+===+===+===+===+===+===+===+===

2011/12 REVENUES BUDGET (debt recovery)

A0184 CONTROL & MONITORING

Total revenue expenditure budget – £507,000
£ recharged income – £0
Percentage recovery work – 20%
Cost attributable CT recovery – £101,400

A0187 DEBT COLLECTION

Total revenue expenditure budget – £738,500
£ recharged income – (£121,800)*
Percentage recovery work – 100%
Cost attributable CT recovery – £616,700

A0191 COUNCIL TAX

Total revenue expenditure budget – £826,900
£ recharged income – £0
Percentage recovery work – 50%
Cost attributable CT recovery – £413,450

TOTAL £1,131,550

*cost of sundry debt collection recharged to other directorates

===+===+===+===+===+===+===+===+===

You have confirmed I presented the above information correctly,
which I rearranged from what can only be assumed, was raw data
dumped onto your original email from one of the council's computer
systems.

Please provide the following information:

1. Which, if any, of the amounts in the above data correspond with
the fees, bailiffs collect from debtors?

2. Which, if any, of the amounts in the above data corresponds with
the VAT paid (and reclaimed by the council) in relation to fees,
bailiffs collect from debtors?

3. If none of the amounts relate to items 1 and/or 2, please
provide the figures (presumably forecasted) for them in the same
period, i.e. 2011/12?

4. With regards the above data. What does the following relate to:

recharged income – (£121,800)*

Yours sincerely,

Neil Gilliatt

Dear PPD - FOI,

I believe you have provided incorrect information in your email of
26 May 2011.

I requested the following:

QUOTE/
In the absence of any apparent requirement to justify these costs
to the Magistrates' Court I would like North East Lincolnshire
Council to supply me with a breakdown itemising costs which will
provide evidence that the cost of court action taken against each
resident would total £70.
END QUOTE/

You supplied the following in relation to the above:

QUOTE/
2011/12 REVENUES BUDGET (debt recovery)

A0184 CONTROL & MONITORING

Total revenue expenditure budget – £507,000
£ recharged income – £0
Percentage recovery work – 20%
Cost attributable CT recovery – £101,400

A0187 DEBT COLLECTION

Total revenue expenditure budget – £738,500
£ recharged income – (£121,800)*
Percentage recovery work – 100%
Cost attributable CT recovery – £616,700

A0191 COUNCIL TAX

Total revenue expenditure budget – £826,900
£ recharged income – £0
Percentage recovery work – 50%
Cost attributable CT recovery – £413,450

TOTAL £1,131,550

*cost of sundry debt collection recharged to other directorates
END QUOTE/

It seems irregular that a figure of £738,500 is listed under the
header "DEBT COLLECTION" when councils boast that private bailiff
firms come at nil cost to the authorities.

This is not the end of the matter however. Despite whether or not
the council actually incurs this amount, the Council Tax
(Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 do not allow for
this to be included in the costs reasonably incurred by the
authority in connection with the summons penalty.

According to the following from the regulations, 34(5)(b) and
34(7)(b) permit only costs reasonably incurred by the authority up
to obtaining the order. Regardless of the council unlawfully
combining the two fees, the regulations do not provide for costs
after the order is obtained to be included in the costs reasonably
incurred.

"Application for liability order

34.–(5) If, after a summons has been issued in accordance with
paragraph (2) but before the application is heard, there is paid or
tendered to the authority an amount equal to the aggregate of—

(a) the sum specified in the summons as the sum outstanding or so
much of it as remains outstanding (as the case may be); and

(b) a sum of an amount equal to the costs reasonably incurred by
the authority in connection with the application up to the time of
the payment or tender,

the authority shall accept the amount and the application shall not
be proceeded with.

(6) The court shall make the order if it is satisfied that the sum
has become payable by the defendant and has not been paid.

(7) An order made pursuant to paragraph (6) shall be made in
respect of an amount equal to the aggregate of—

(a) the sum payable, and

(b) a sum of an amount equal to the costs reasonably incurred by
the applicant in obtaining the order."

Please will you make corrections to the information you supplied in
your email of 26 May 2011.

Yours sincerely,

Neil Gilliatt

Dear PPD - FOI,

Thank you for your email of 8 February.

This has satisfactorily answered my additional queries I brought up
in my 28 January 2012 email. However, I'm surprised that the
council doesn't hold details of the amounts of fees collected from
debtors by bailiffs, especially as the VAT element is accounted
for. For this reason, the amounts of fees collected by bailiffs
must be invoiced to the council musn't they?

I'm unsure how you have addressed queries in my 31 January 2012
email, unless it is deemed that your statement: "None.", to the
following question deals with it?

"1. Which, if any, of the amounts in the above data correspond with
the fees, bailiffs collect from debtors?"

I'm happy with this answer, but I'm uncertain what the figure
£738,500, listed under "DEBT COLLECTION", accounts for, especially
as both the remaining categories also list costs which are
attributable to Council Tax recovery.

Maybe a more comprehensive description of the costs, and at what
stage in the recovery process these are incurred by the council,
would make things easier.

Yours sincerely,

Neil Gilliatt

Dear PPD - FOI,

Thank you for your 29 February 2012 email.

The council still has not provided information which would
determine the costs incurred by the council for issuing a summons
would be £70.

It stated in your email of 10 May 2011:

"The costs raised are to cover the cost of COUNCIL TAX COLLECTION
and recovery. This includes the technological systems in place and
employment of staff. Costs collected also cover monies paid to Her
Majesty's Court Service for the use of their facilities. The monies
raised from costs are not greater than the COST OF THE SERVICE."

Firstly it is stated that the cost of “COUNCIL TAX COLLECTION” is
to be covered by costs raised through the summonses. Making those
caught out with these fees, pay for the collection of council tax
is unlawful as the Council Tax Regulations only allow for costs to
be recovered which are incurred by the authority in connection with
the application. It seems, in its statement: "The monies raised
from costs are not greater than the COST OF THE SERVICE", the
service it refers to is not council tax recovery but council tax
collection in general.

Secondly, the council states that: "Costs collected also cover
monies paid to Her Majesty's Court Service for the use of their
facilities". There’s no question that the money paid to the court
for this purpose, is for obtaining the liability order. More
importantly though, this means debtors who get charged for being
issued with a summons but settle their accounts prior to them going
to court, are specifically being charged costs for obtaining a
liability order, something that they should not incur and is
completely unlawful.

The statement made in your 29 February 2012 email reinforces that
the figures supplied do not specifically relate to the costs
reasonably incurred by the authority in connection with the
application.

i.e.

"The figure £738,500, listed under "DEBT COLLECTION", represents
the cost of running the recovery service and is the total revenue
expenditure budget associated with the debt recovery team for
2011/12."

It appears the council is unlawfully and deceitfully financing
COUNCIL TAX COLLECTION and recovery operations with the summons fee
imposed on its residents.

To pursue this any further with the authority would be completely
futile, so perhaps it would be better dealt with by the Serious
Fraud Office.

Yours sincerely,

Neil Gilliatt

Dear PPD - FOI,

There is some confusing information relating to your quoted 2011/12
Revenues budget (debt recovery), in your 26 May 2011 email.

It states that the annual budget for all activity associated with
recovery of Council Tax and Business rates amounts to £1,131,550.

It is unclear whether any of the figures quoted include monies paid
to Her Majesty's Court Service for the use of their facilities,
i.e. £3 for each application incurring the summons charge.

Please indicate:

Q1. Whether the £3 cost is included in the figures and if so, which
category is listed?

Q2. If the £3 cost is not included in the figures, does this then
mean it is written off as there are no longer costs for obtaining
liability orders?

Yours sincerely,

Neil Gilliatt

Dear Kidd, Hayley,

Reference number 2567/1213

Thank you for you email of 18 April 2012 and your offer to clarify
further any details I require.

Q1. Could you please explain the composition of the £70 summons fee
imposed on council taxpayers in terms of costs incurred by the
council for issuing the summons and obtaining the liability order?

Q2.It appears some costs which are incurred by the council for
obtaining a liability order, i.e. £25 are no longer imposed on
householders when an order is made against them. However, the
summons charge imposed, simultaneously increased by £38.

Are costs for obtaining the liability order now incurred by the
taxpayer for those connected specifically with the summons
application?

Q3. It is a reasonable assumption that the £3 paid to HMCTS per
application comprised part of the £25 incurred by the council for
obtaining the liability order.

Has this been correctly assumed, if so what was the remaining £22
costs attributable to in obtaining the order?

Q4. If incorrectly assumed, what makes up the £25 costs
attributable to obtaining the order?

Yours sincerely,

Neil Gilliatt

Dear Kidd, Hayley,

Reference number 2567/1213

I have revisited my request sent in to you in an email of 19 April
2012.

I noticed Q2. could have been worded clearer. Could you please
consider this email for any response you may give.

Q1. Could you please explain the composition of the £70 summons fee
imposed on council taxpayers in terms of costs incurred by the
council for issuing the summons and obtaining the liability order?

Q2.It appears some costs which are incurred by the council for
obtaining a liability order, i.e. £25 are no longer imposed on
householders when an order is made against them. However, the
summons charge imposed, simultaneously increased by £38.

Are the specific costs for obtaining the liability order now
incurred by the taxpayer, along with those which are connected with
the summons application? i.e. in with the £70 at the summons stage.

Q3. It is a reasonable assumption that the £3 paid to HMCTS per
application comprised part of the £25 incurred by the council for
obtaining the liability order.

Has this been correctly assumed, if so what was the remaining £22
costs attributable to in obtaining the order?

Q4. If incorrectly assumed, what makes up the £25 costs
attributable to obtaining the order?

Yours sincerely,

Neil Gilliatt

Dear PPD - FOI,

Reference number 2567/1213 (2587/1213 ?????)

Thank you for your 23 April 2012 email. However, I replied
specifically to the council's Business Support Officer, Hayley
Kidd. This was in response to her email of 18 April 2012 because
the offer was made to further clarify details:

Quote:

"If you require any further clarification or details, please do not
hesitate to contact me, quoting the reference number above."

Please forward this message on to the council's Business Support
Officer, Hayley Kidd, for her attention.

P.S.

You have stated that the £70.00 fee, is based on comparisons with
the fees charged by neighbouring authorities (including Hull City
Council and East Riding of Yorkshire Council). The figure of £70
was then compared against national averages, and as previously
identified checked to ensure that the monies raised from costs
would not be greater than the cost of the service.

This explanation is unacceptable and reinforces the fact that
NELC's costs are not based on those reasonably incurred.

It is not good enough to base what NELC charges in penalties on
what other local authorities get away with. Nor is it acceptable to
base them in relation to national averages.

Your claim that "monies raised from costs would not be greater than
the cost of the service" has already been discredited. The figures
supplied in your email of 26 May 2011 to Freedom of Information
request, 20110505 relate to council tax administration in general,
as confirmed in your 10 May 2011 email where it is quoted:

"The costs raised are to cover the cost of Council Tax collection
and recovery."

You also state that "the fees reflect the costs that have been
reasonably incurred by the authority in connection with the
application up to the time of payment or tender, and we therefore
do not hold a breakdown of the composition of each fee."

There is no logical basis to specify a predetermined sum. This can
only be determined by the Magistrate at the liability order hearing
and after he has considered such factors as the number summoned in
the bulk application which would have a bearing on any costs the
council should be awarded.

There is also the mystery of the £25 costs for obtaining a
liability order which have disappeard completely.

Yours sincerely,

Neil Gilliatt

Dear PPD - FOI,

Thank you for you email of 1 May 2012.

You have stated that checks are made,

"to ensure that the monies raised from costs would not be greater
than the cost of the service."

and that,

"the summons costs are based on an average figure which is not
greater than the cost of the service.."

Can you please confirm that the "COST OF THE SERVICE" refers to
"the cost of Council Tax collection and recovery".

Yours sincerely,

Neil Gilliatt

Dear PPD - FOI,

NELC supplied the following figures for the council's total budget
in relation to costs attributable to Council Tax recovery.

===+===+===+===+===+===+===+===+===

2011/12 REVENUES BUDGET (debt recovery)

A0184 CONTROL & MONITORING

Total revenue expenditure budget – £507,000
£ recharged income – £0
Percentage recovery work – 20%
Cost attributable CT recovery – £101,400

A0187 DEBT COLLECTION

Total revenue expenditure budget – £738,500
£ recharged income – (£121,800)*
Percentage recovery work – 100%
Cost attributable CT recovery – £616,700

A0191 COUNCIL TAX

Total revenue expenditure budget – £826,900
£ recharged income – £0
Percentage recovery work – 50%
Cost attributable CT recovery – £413,450

TOTAL £1,131,550

*cost of sundry debt collection recharged to other directorates

===+===+===+===+===+===+===+===+===

Including:

• Quantity
• Cost
• Revenues budget category (COUNCIL TAX, DEBT COLLECTION etc.)
• Attributed OR NOT? to recovery work

For (2011/12) and in relation to council tax bills, reminders,
summonses etc, please provide information for the following:

1. Annual Council Tax & NNDR Billing

2. Housing & Council Tax Benefit Notifications - year end
calculation

3. Council Tax reminders

4. Non Domestic Rates reminders

5. Council Tax finals letters

6. Non Domestic Rates finals letters

7. 14 day notifications (settle accounts in full)

8. Council Tax summonses

9. Non Domestic Rates summonses

10. Daily billing

11. Ongoing Printing / Personalisation Requirements

12. Leaflets, for example Direct debit mandates which are inserted
in any of the above.

Yours sincerely,

Neil Gilliatt

Dear PPD - FOI,

Thank you for your 17 May 2012 email and your confirmation that the
'cost of service' relates to the costs reasonably incurred for
Council Tax collection and recovery by the North East Lincolnshire
Council, as allowed by the Council Tax Administration and
Enforcement regulations 1992.

I have looked at the regulations and unless I'm missing something
can only link your reference to Regulation 34 where at items
(5)(b), (7)(b) and (8) there are the following references to costs
reasonably incurred:

...an amount equal to the costs reasonably incurred by the
authority in connection with the application up to the time of the
payment or tender

...an amount equal to the costs reasonably incurred by the
applicant in obtaining the order.

...an amount equal to the costs reasonably incurred by the
authority in making the application.

Could you please quote the particular reference in the Council Tax
Administration and Enforcement regulations 1992 which allow for
costs reasonably incurred for Council Tax collection and recovery.

Yours sincerely,

Neil Gilliatt

Dear PPD - FOI,

Thank you for your 29 May 2012 email.

I have looked at the Local Government Finance Act 1992 and formed
the opinion that this is primary legislation, which, as far as I
can tell, lays out the boundaries to which the secondary
legislation (SI 1992/613) must conform. Or at least, in relation to
schedule 4 of the Local Government Finance Act and PART VI of the
Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992.

I can therefore assume that the Council Tax (Administration and
Enforcement) Regulations 1992 is the appropriate legislation to
consider in trying to establish whether or not there is a
particular reference which allows for costs reasonably incurred for
Council Tax collection and recovery.

So, I still maintain that Regulation 34 of SI 1992/613 at items
(5)(b), (7)(b) and (8) will be the most relevant part of the
legislation in connection with costs reasonably incurred. However,
there doesn't appear to be any reference to costs reasonably
incurred for Council Tax collection and recovery.

P.S. There is also my email of 14 May 2012, which appears to have
been overlooked.

Yours sincerely,

Neil Gilliatt

Dear North East Lincolnshire Council,

Thank you for your 29 May 2012 email.

I have looked at the Local Government Finance Act 1992 and formed
the opinion that this is primary legislation, which, as far as I
can tell, lays out the boundaries to which the secondary
legislation (SI 1992/613) must conform. Or at least, in relation to
schedule 4 of the Local Government Finance Act and PART VI of the
Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992.

I can therefore assume that the Council Tax (Administration and
Enforcement) Regulations 1992 is the appropriate legislation to
consider in trying to establish whether or not there is a
particular reference which allows for costs reasonably incurred for
Council Tax collection and recovery.

So, I still maintain that Regulation 34 of SI 1992/613 at items
(5)(b), (7)(b) and (8) will be the most relevant part of the
legislation in connection with costs reasonably incurred. However,
there doesn't appear to be any reference to costs reasonably
incurred for Council Tax collection and recovery.

P.S. There is also my email of 14 May 2012, which appears to have
been overlooked.

Yours sincerely,

Neil Gilliatt