Composition of Council Tax Summons costs

The request was successful.

Dear Milton Keynes Council,

In 1997/98, Summons costs made up 0% (£0) of the total £35.70 charged to Council Tax payers in obtaining a Liability Order through the Magistrates Court.

In 1998/99, the ratio of the costs changed with Summons costs making up 100% (£36.70) of the total £36.70 charged to Council Tax payers.....

In 1999/00, the ratio of the costs remained unchanged with 100% of the total costs £37.70 being made up of the Summons costs (£37.70).

In 2001/02, the ratio of the costs remained unchanged with 100% of the total costs £42 being made up of the Summons costs (£42).

In 2002/03, the ratio of the costs remained unchanged with 100% of the total costs £43 being made up of the Summons costs (£43).

In 2003/04, the ratio of the costs remained unchanged with 100% of the total costs £50.70 being made up of the Summons costs (£50.70).

In 2005/06, the ratio of the costs remained unchanged with 100% of the total costs £52.20 being made up of the Summons costs (£52.20).

In 2006/07, the ratio of the costs remained unchanged with 100% of the total costs £55.50 being made up of the Summons costs (£55.50).

In 2008/09, the ratio of the costs remained unchanged with 100% of the total costs £57 being made up of the Summons costs (£57).

In 2009/10, the ratio of the costs changed with 67% of the total costs £90 being made up of the Summons costs (£60).

Q. Please supply, separately and in relation to each review of the summons and liability order costs charged to individual householders in respect of council tax covering the above period;

all information you hold to justify the changes, for example the reason for any change in composition of charges, and/or increases with calculations in support of the changes.

Included in this information would be cabinet documents or similar that would have been necessary to propose the changes and subsequently agree and implement them.

Yours faithfully,

Tom Bola

Milton Keynes Council

Dear Sir/Madam

This is an automated email.

Re: Freedom of Information request - Composition of Council Tax Summons costs

Thank you for contacting Milton Keynes Council at the following email address:

[Milton Keynes Council request email]

We try to reply to all email quickly and effectively and to help us to do this we have set up a reply system which automatically sends email to the service area directly. Consequently, you need take no further action. Our system has logged your email enquiry and you will receive a reply shortly. Please direct any further queries on this matter to [Milton Keynes Council request email].

Please do not reply to this email.

Thank you for contacting Milton Keynes Council.

Visit the official Milton Keynes web site at www.milton-keynes.gov.uk.

**** This email and any attachments hereto are strictly confidential and intended solely for the addressee. It may contain information which is privileged. If you are not the intended addressee, you must not disclose, forward, copy or take any action in reliance of this email or attachments. If you have received this email in error, please delete it and notify us as soon as possible.

The anti-virus software used by Milton Keynes Council is updated regularly in an effort to minimise the possibility of viruses infecting our systems. However, you should be aware that there is no absolute guarantee that any files attached to this email are virus free.****

Dear Milton Keynes Council,

Response to this request is delayed. By law, Milton Keynes Council should have responded by 23 June 2014

Yours faithfully,

Tom Bola

Adams, Mark, Milton Keynes Council

5 Attachments

Ref 219553

 

Dear Mr Bola

 

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000 - INFORMATION REQUEST

 

Your request for information has now been considered.  We hold details of
calculations for 2 periods, 2008-2009 and 2009-2010. Court costs have not
increased since 2009/10. 

 

This is not a decision for the Cabinet (as court costs are agreed by the
Court) so there are no Cabinet documents available.

 

If you have a complaint about the handling of your request then please
contact me.  I will arrange for an internal review which will be
considered as part of Stage 3 of the Council’s complaints procedure.

 

You also have a right of appeal to the Information Commissioner at:

Information Commissioner's Office

Wycliffe House

Water Lane

Wilmslow 

Cheshire 

SK9 5AF

View Google Map

Tel: 0303 123 1113

Fax: 01625 524510

www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

Mark Adams
Financial Administrator – Revenues

T: 01908 253746

F: 01908 253707

E: [1][email address]

 

Milton Keynes Service Partnership LLP | Civic Offices | 1 Saxon Gate
East | Central Milton Keynes | MK9 3HQ

 

[2]GOLD MOST IMPROVED TEAM OF copy  [3]BRONZE EXCELLENCE IN CUSTO
copy  [4]Silver award

 

 

 

show quoted sections

Dear Mr Adams,

Thank you for providing the calculations.

Some of the figures appear to be made up in order that the desired sum of costs is returned when the calculation is carried out. This is made more obvious when you compare the spread sheet (2009) with the one used to provide its breakdown in 2008, which is modelled on the same calculation.

You will see for Milton Keynes Council to return its desired sum in its earlier breakdown, it attributed 40% of its "Service Stream Charge" to revenues from which it attributed 40% of that to Council Tax Recovery.

However, in its 2009 breakdown, in order to return an inflated sum, it substituted 48.8% and 45% were it previously used values of 40% for each element.

This points to the calculations being made up and meaningless, especially when the starting figure, the "Service Stream Charge" could be a sum just plucked out of the air.

The number of summonses issued in 2008/09 according to the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA) was 16,125, raising almost £920,000. The estimated number of summonses used in the first calculation, from which it determined the individual summons costs was 12,000. This indicates that Milton Keynes Council makes a 26% allowance for summonses which are withdrawn, written off or not collected. In doing this, it is obvious that the defendants left actually paying the costs are paying an inflated sum to either compensate for the councils error of judgement or subsidise the costs of those others having them waived for reasons likely that they agree to the council's favourable terms, for example, switching their method of payment to Direct Debit.

The certainty is, that by loading extra costs on to the debtor for expenditure otherwise unrecoverable, the council would not be justified in stating to the Magistrates' court that the amount claimed by way of costs in any individual case is no more than that reasonably incurred by the authority.

The law does not provide that the billing authority may increase the costs in respect of one debtor from whom collection is easy in order to pay another's costs whose payment is not so easily obtained.

Yours sincerely,

Tom Bola