Council tax payment allocation in accordance with R. v Miskin Lower Justices [1953]

The request was partially successful.

Dear Haringey Borough Council,

The Council makes the statement quoted below from the link:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/e...

"Haringey Council has its computer software set to allocate payments received, that do not match with the payment plan for the current year’s debt, to the oldest year's liability."

The council's statement above does not agree with the judgment in the case of R. v Miskin Lower Justices (see below link to the judgment):

http://s000.tinyupload.com/index.php?fil...

The judgment clarifies the position in cases where a creditor has to make a decision as to which account payment should be allocated when a debtor has one account more burdensome for him than another and his payment is unspecified

Clearly the council's statement, if it were to agree with the judgment, would be.....

[[ Where the debtor does not make any reference as to where the payment should be allocated then the creditor must allocate the payment to the account which it is most beneficial to the debtor to reduce. ]]

Q. Where did the council obtain the information regarding the appropriation of payments case law which conflicts with the judgment in R. v Miskin Lower Justices [1953]?

Yours faithfully,

S Staffordson

Haringey Borough Council

Dear S Staffordson

 

Freedom of Information / Environmental Information Regulations Request:
LBH/9156119

 

I acknowledge your request for information received on 16 September 2019.

 

This information request will be dealt with in accordance with the Freedom
of Information Act 2000 / Environmental Information Regulations and we
will send the response by 14 October 2019

 

Yours sincerely,

 

 

 

Feedback and Information Governance

Corporate and Customer Services

Haringey Council 

 

[1][email address]

 

 

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential, may be
subject to legal privilege and are intended only for the person(s) or
organisation(s) to whom this email is addressed. Any unauthorised use,
retention, distribution, copying or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If
you have received this email in error, please notify the system
administrator at Haringey Council immediately and delete this e-mail from
your system. Although this e-mail and any attachments are believed to be
free of any virus or other defect which might affect any computer or
system into which they are received and opened, it is the responsibility
of the recipient to ensure they are virus free and no responsibility is
accepted for any loss or damage from receipt or use thereof. All
communications sent to or from external third party organisations may be
subject to recording and/or monitoring in accordance with relevant
legislation.

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]

Haringey Borough Council

Dear Staffordson,

 

We have considered your request and our view is that your request is
invalid. Your request contains a series of questions rather than specific
requests for information.

 

The Freedom of Information Act gives people the right to access recorded
information. The Act does not give people a right to be given answers to
questions that they would like to put to a local authority if this would
mean creating new information or would involve giving opinion or judgement
that is not already recorded.

 

Although you have indicated that you wish to make a request for
information, further to your 'right to know' contained in section 1 of the
Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA), your email contains an enquiry
rather than a specific request for recorded information held by Haringey
Council.

 

Guidance given by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) states that
requests which are not for recorded information, but instead ask
questions, such as "please explain your policy on x" or "please explain
your decision to do y" are not requests for recorded information and
therefore should be treated as routine correspondence."

 

The ICO has produced guidance for people who wish to make a request for
information under the Freedom of Information Act; you can access it by
following this link:
[1]https://ico.org.uk/for-the-public/offici...

 

Our web site contains detailed information about Haringey Council’s
structure and services. You may want to look at the information that is
available on the site and consider submitting a specific request for
copies of information held by the council. Alternatively, we can direct
your query to the appropriate council team to be dealt with as a normal
‘course of business' enquiry. Please advise how you would like to proceed.

 

Please note that we will take no further action on this request until we
receive clarification from you.

 

Kind regards,

 

 

Feedback and Information Governance

Corporate and Customer Services

Haringey Council 

 

[2][email address]

 

 

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential, may be
subject to legal privilege and are intended only for the person(s) or
organisation(s) to whom this email is addressed. Any unauthorised use,
retention, distribution, copying or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If
you have received this email in error, please notify the system
administrator at Haringey Council immediately and delete this e-mail from
your system. Although this e-mail and any attachments are believed to be
free of any virus or other defect which might affect any computer or
system into which they are received and opened, it is the responsibility
of the recipient to ensure they are virus free and no responsibility is
accepted for any loss or damage from receipt or use thereof. All
communications sent to or from external third party organisations may be
subject to recording and/or monitoring in accordance with relevant
legislation.

References

Visible links
1. https://ico.org.uk/for-the-public/offici...
2. mailto:[email address]

Dear Haringey Borough Council,

When a decision is made with potentially legal implications the council is required to consult the Monitoring Officer and such procedures should be formally recorded. A decision that requires setting the parameters of a council tax payment processing system to automatically allocate non-specific payments to the oldest account rather than to the in-year account is one such decision.

I therefore consider my request is a valid request under freedom of information legislation.

Yours faithfully,

S Staffordson

FOI, Haringey Borough Council

Dear Mr Staffordson,

Thank you for your email below.

Having reviewed our records it appears that we have logged your request twice.

Pleases be advised that your Freedom of Information request is valid, it has been logged under Lbh/9156119 and we will send the response by 14 October 2019.

Please accept our sincere apologies for our internal error in handling your request.

Hope this is clear and let me know if I can be of any further assistance.

Thanks and Regards,

Saema Akhlaq
Feedback Review Officer

Haringey Council
Corporate and Customer Services
5th Floor, Alexandra House, 10 Station Road, N22 7TR

[email address]

www.haringey.gov.uk
twitter: @haringeycouncil / @haringeycareers
facebook.com/haringeycouncil

show quoted sections

Pope Kieron, Haringey Borough Council

Dear S Staffordson

Re: Freedom of Information Act Request ref: LBH/9156119

 

Thank you for your request for information received on 16 September 2019,
in which you asked for the following:

 

Where did the council obtain the information regarding the appropriation
of payments case law which conflicts with the judgment in R. v Miskin
Lower Justices [1953]?

 

My response is as follows:

 

Devaynes v Noble (1816) 35 ER 781 established case law that payments are
presumed to be appropriated to debts in the order in which the debts are
incurred and gives consideration to the debt that it is most beneficial
for the debtor to pay first.

The case was also heard in the High Court (Chancery Division) and so holds
equal weighting to the case law that you have quoted, I note that in R. v
Miskin Lower Justices [1953] the allocation of the monies paid was also
made to the oldest debt.

In the vast majority of cases the oldest debt is the most beneficial for
the debtor to clear and this approach does not appear to conflict with
either of the above judgements.  However, in accordance with Devaynes v
Noble and considering R. v Miskin, if on review and/or by request of the
payer, we would allocate receipts to the balance which the debtor felt was
most beneficial to them.

If you are unhappy with how we have responded to your request you can ask
us to conduct an Internal Review. If so, please contact the [1]Feedback
and Information Team. (Please note you should do so within two months of
this response.)

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Kieron Pope

Revenues Team Leader

Corporate and Customer Services

 

Haringey Council

Level 6 Alexandra House, Wood Green, London N22 7WJ

 

 

T:020 8489 2837

E. [2][email address]

 

[3]www.haringey.gov.uk

[4]twitter@haringeycouncil

[5]facebook.com/haringeycouncil

 

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential, may be
subject to legal privilege and are intended only for the person(s) or
organisation(s) to whom this email is addressed. Any unauthorised use,
retention, distribution, copying or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If
you have received this email in error, please notify the system
administrator at Haringey Council immediately and delete this e-mail from
your system. Although this e-mail and any attachments are believed to be
free of any virus or other defect which might affect any computer or
system into which they are received and opened, it is the responsibility
of the recipient to ensure they are virus free and no responsibility is
accepted for any loss or damage from receipt or use thereof. All
communications sent to or from external third party organisations may be
subject to recording and/or monitoring in accordance with relevant
legislation.

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
2. mailto:[email address]
3. http://www.haringey.gov.uk/
4. https://twitter.com/haringeycouncil
5. https://www.facebook.com/haringeycouncil

Dear Pope Kieron,

Thanks for the response, however, I would like to question the appropriateness of the Devaynes v Noble case law. My understanding is that it does not apply to cases which comprise of distinct and separate debts such as council tax where a fresh demand is served each year. The authority is confined to cases where there is an unbroken account between the parties, or “one blended fund,” as in the case of a current account at a bank.

See for example Snells Principles Of Equity's definition in the below document:

http://s000.tinyupload.com/index.php?fil...

Additionally, I can't agree with the view that 'in the vast majority of cases the oldest debt is the most beneficial for the debtor to clear'. This would almost certainly result in the Council's automated recovery procedure kicking in to the detriment of the taxpayer by way of unnecessary additional costs relating to the enforcement of the in-year account which would have fallen in arrears not as a result of the taxpayer failing to maintain his account but as a consequence of the billing authority misappropriating payment.

The council is most likely to have already obtained a liability order adding costs in respect of any older debts that the taxpayer might have and the council cannot repeat this procedure adding more costs again for the same year's liability.

I would appreciate the above being clarified.

Yours sincerely,

S Staffordson

Dear Pope Kieron,

You should have dealt with this by now. The ICO considers 40 days to be the absolute maximum a public body has to provide its outcome to a review. Do you realise that 49 days have passed so far?

Yours sincerely,

S Staffordson

Pope Kieron, Haringey Borough Council

Dear Mr Staffordson

My response was sent to you on 11/10/2019. I am not prepared to engage in any further legal debate as legal opinion is covered under Legal Professional Privilege and as such is exempt from disclosure under Section 42 FOI Act. However, we are satisfied that our policy complies with legal requirements.

As clearly stated in my previous response, If you are unhappy with how we have responded to your request you can ask us to conduct an Internal Review. If so, please contact the Feedback and Information Team ([email address]). Please note you should do so within two months of the original response.)

Regards

Kieron Pope
Revenues Team Leader
Corporate and Customer Services

Haringey Council
Level 6 Alexandra House, Wood Green, London N22 7WJ

T:020 8489 2837
E. [email address]

www.haringey.gov.uk
twitter: @haringeycouncil / @haringeycareers
facebook.com/haringeycouncil

 Please consider the environment before printing this email.

show quoted sections

Dear Pope Kieron,

How do you have the front to state you 'are satisfied that [your] policy complies with legal requirements', back it up with case authority which is blatently irrelevant (Devaynes v Noble) then rely on the exemption under Section 42 of the FOI Act?

Yours sincerely,

S Staffordson

Dear Pope Kieron,

The case of Devaynes v Noble 1816 merivale 529 (Claytons Case) is confined to cases where there is an unbroken account between the parties, or “one blended fund,” as in the case of a current account at a bank or between traders; it does not apply where there is no such account or fund, but merely distinct and separate debts.

Therefore your reliance on this case law is unacceptable when you consider that Council Tax consists of distinct and separate debts for which the local authority issue a bill each year relating specifically to that year's liability.

You have seen for yourself the definition of the authority in the below document:
https://tinyurl.com/y3uzpd5n

Yours sincerely,

S Staffordson

Pope Kieron, Haringey Borough Council

Dear Mr Staffordson

Thank you for your further comments in relation to this matter. However, as previously advised we will not be responding further through the FOI channel that you have used as the request sits outside of that arena.

If you have specific challenges to one of our policies, you can raise this via your ward Councillor (assuming you are a resident) who can ask the appropriate cabinet member to review it. If you are not a resident of the Borough then you should raise the issue with your local MP who can contact our members enquiry team on your behalf.

Regards

Kieron Pope
Revenues Team Leader
Corporate and Customer Services

Haringey Council
Level 6 Alexandra House, Wood Green, London N22 7WJ

T:020 8489 2837
E. [email address]

www.haringey.gov.uk
twitter: @haringeycouncil / @haringeycareers
facebook.com/haringeycouncil

 Please consider the environment before printing this email.

show quoted sections

Dear Haringey Borough Council,

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

I am writing to request an internal review of Haringey Borough Council's handling of my FOI request 'Council tax payment allocation in accordance with R. v Miskin Lower Justices [1953]'.

When a decision is made with potentially legal implications the council is required to consult the Monitoring Officer and such procedures should be formally recorded. A decision that requires setting the parameters of a council tax payment processing system to automatically allocate non-specific payments to the oldest account rather than to the in-year account is one such decision.

If the proper legal process was followed when the decision was made then there will be a record of it comprising a background outlining the relevant legal requirements and risk assessment highlighting the degree to which the council would be exposed to legal challenge if not complied with.

I have provided an example of the kind of assessment that should have been documented and it is patently obvious that the restrictions you refer to with regards Legal Professional Privilege played no part whatsoever in the procedure. Note particularly the reference to the High Court case between Reverend Paul Nicholson and Tottenham Magistrates, Nicolson, R (on the application of) v Tottenham Magistrates & Anor [2015] EWHC 1252 (Admin).

https://democracy.npt.gov.uk/documents/s...

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

Yours faithfully,

S Staffordson

Pope Kieron, Haringey Borough Council



I am currently away from the office . If your message is urgent, please
call 0208 489 3845 and a member of the Enforcement Team will assist you,
otherwise I will deal with your email on my return.

Regards

Kieron

 

 

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential, may be
subject to legal privilege and are intended only for the person(s) or
organisation(s) to whom this email is addressed. Any unauthorised use,
retention, distribution, copying or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If
you have received this email in error, please notify the system
administrator at Haringey Council immediately and delete this e-mail from
your system. Although this e-mail and any attachments are believed to be
free of any virus or other defect which might affect any computer or
system into which they are received and opened, it is the responsibility
of the recipient to ensure they are virus free and no responsibility is
accepted for any loss or damage from receipt or use thereof. All
communications sent to or from external third party organisations may be
subject to recording and/or monitoring in accordance with relevant
legislation.

Haringey Borough Council

Dear Mr Staffordson,

 

Internal Review regarding Freedom of Information request reference
LBH/9156119

 

Thank you for your email received in this office on 02 January 2020. I
apologise for the delay in this acknowledgement.

Your request is :

'I am writing to request an internal review of Haringey Borough Council's
handling of my FOI request 'Council tax payment allocation in accordance
with R. v Miskin Lower Justices [1953]'.

When a decision is made with potentially legal implications the council is
required to consult the Monitoring Officer and such procedures should be
formally recorded. A decision that requires setting the parameters of a
council tax payment processing system to automatically allocate
non-specific payments to the oldest account rather than to the in-year
account is one such decision.

If the proper legal process was followed when the decision was made then
there will be a record of it comprising a background outlining the
relevant legal requirements and risk assessment highlighting the degree to
which the council would be exposed to legal challenge if not complied
with.'

Your request for an Internal Review has been logged with the reference
LBH/9487520. Please quote this reference number on any further
correspondence.

 

We will now review the response you have been sent to the above request
and I aim to let you know the outcome of our investigation by 30 January
2020. If I need longer, I will write to let you know the reason and when
you can expect a full reply.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

 

Corporate Feedback Team

 

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential, may be
subject to legal privilege and are intended only for the person(s) or
organisation(s) to whom this email is addressed. Any unauthorised use,
retention, distribution, copying or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If
you have received this email in error, please notify the system
administrator at Haringey Council immediately and delete this e-mail from
your system. Although this e-mail and any attachments are believed to be
free of any virus or other defect which might affect any computer or
system into which they are received and opened, it is the responsibility
of the recipient to ensure they are virus free and no responsibility is
accepted for any loss or damage from receipt or use thereof. All
communications sent to or from external third party organisations may be
subject to recording and/or monitoring in accordance with relevant
legislation.

Haringey Borough Council

Dear Mr Staffordson,

Internal Review of the Freedom of Information Act/ Environmental
Information Regulations request reference: LBH/9156119

Thank you for giving us an opportunity to review the response we have sent
to your Freedom of Information / Environmental Information Regulations
request, and make sure that we have done all we can to put things right
for you.

Your internal review consists of the following:

‘I am writing to request an internal review of Haringey Borough Council's
handling of my FOI request 'Council tax payment allocation in accordance
with R. v Miskin Lower Justices [1953]'.

 When a decision is made with potentially legal implications the council
is required to consult the Monitoring Officer and such procedures should
be formally recorded. A decision that requires setting the parameters of a
council tax payment processing system to automatically allocate
non-specific payments to the oldest account rather than to the in-year
account is one such decision.

If the proper legal process was followed when the decision was made then
there will be a record of it comprising a background outlining the
relevant legal requirements and risk assessment highlighting the degree to
which the council would be exposed to legal challenge if not complied
with.

 

I have provided an example of the kind of assessment that should have been
documented and it is patently obvious that the restrictions you refer to
with regards Legal Professional Privilege played no part whatsoever in the
procedure. Note particularly the reference to the High Court case between
Reverend Paul Nicholson and Tottenham Magistrates, Nicolson, R (on the
application of) v Tottenham Magistrates & Anor [2015] EWHC 1252 (Admin).

[1]https://democracy.npt.gov.uk/documents/s...

Our response is as follows:

I can confirm that no such a document exists. I note you have been in
correspondence with the service regarding the process of allocating
payments and they have explained their position.

I trust this has clarified our position. If you are dissatisfied, you may
complain to the Information Commissioner, who may be able to help you.
Please note that if you wish to refer this case to the Information
Commissioner, they ask that you do so within two months of our response to
you.

You can contact the Commissioner at:

You can contact the Commissioner by email: [2][email address]

Information about their services is on their website: [3]www.ico.org.uk

Yours sincerely

 

 

Simon Dingomal

Corporate Feedback Officer

 

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential, may be
subject to legal privilege and are intended only for the person(s) or
organisation(s) to whom this email is addressed. Any unauthorised use,
retention, distribution, copying or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If
you have received this email in error, please notify the system
administrator at Haringey Council immediately and delete this e-mail from
your system. Although this e-mail and any attachments are believed to be
free of any virus or other defect which might affect any computer or
system into which they are received and opened, it is the responsibility
of the recipient to ensure they are virus free and no responsibility is
accepted for any loss or damage from receipt or use thereof. All
communications sent to or from external third party organisations may be
subject to recording and/or monitoring in accordance with relevant
legislation.

References

Visible links
1. https://democracy.npt.gov.uk/documents/s...
2. mailto:[email address]
3. http://www.ico.org.uk/

Dear Haringey Borough Council,

Thank you for your response. I don't see any point in pursuing this but further to my email of 26 December 2019 my thoughts are that this issue should be put before the council's Monitoring Officer as it is his duty to ensure all decision making is lawful and the legal process described in that email should have been followed in arriving at the decision.

I understand that the software supplied to local authorities for the purpose of payment allocation has a parameter which can typically be set so that when a payment fails to match one of the rules it will, option 1, be applied to the in-year account, or option 2 , be applied to the oldest years account. Therefore, it is within the council's control to maximise the frequency with which non-specific payments would be correctly applied i.e. to maintain the in-year account as a priority.

Regarding the Miskin case law, despite being decided in 1953, it is obviously relevant to Council Tax or there would unlikely be guidance tailored specifically for the benefit of Local Authorities. For example, Ipswich Council demonstrates its awareness of the case and other case law relevant to Council Tax liability in the following page exhibited presumably from a book entitled "Local Authority Revenues" https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/4...

The relevant passage summarises a billing authority's obligations regarding the allocation of payments where a customer has several accounts payable to the council in the context of R v Miskin Lower Justices and associated case law. The Institute of the Revenues Rating and Valuation (IRRV) has published similar in its 10 October 2002 Insight magazine https://tinyurl.com/y3hoyx9v

In respect of the council's statement; "payments received, that do not match...", there was no precedent set in the Miskin case based on payments matching the instalment amount of a particular year.

https://tinyurl.com/vk2pwhn (R v Miskin)

It is clear from the first paragraph of the judgment that the debtor (husband) did not once in any of the payments he made, make a payment matching an amount that he was required to under the terms of the maintenance/committal orders. The judge held that an appropriation was inferred from the circumstances to be the debt which it was most beneficial for the debtor to reduce (see quoted from the judgment).

"...the question whether the payments made by the husband should be appropriated to the original debt depended on the particular facts of the case. The husband would be likely to wish the payments to be utilized in discharge of the original debt..." (so that he would secure his release from the committal order).

As for the Council defending the practice of applying non-specified payment to the oldest year where a debt remains outstanding, the overwhelming evidence is that this does not accord with established case law.

Possibly the council has been influenced by the ruling in Devaynes v Noble 1816 merivale 529 (Clayton's Case). Clayton's Case is confined to cases where there is an unbroken account between the parties, or “one blended fund,” as in the case of a current account at a bank or between traders; it does not apply where there is no such account or fund, but merely distinct and separate debts. Snells Principles Of Equity's gives a definition in the document here: https://tinyurl.com/y3uzpd5n

A number of billing authorities wrongly rely on the Clayton Case ruling to justify allocating non-specific payment to the arrears because the effect of the rule is that in the absence of any express appropriation, each payment is impliedly appropriated to the earliest debt that is not statute-barred (payments are presumed to be appropriated to debts in the order in which the debts are incurred). They are of course misinformed because the rule does not apply to Council Tax as it consists of distinct insulated debts, between which a plain line of separation can be drawn (a bill is issued each year relating specifically to that year's liability).

Conveniently in the Clayton Case judgment the rules by which the application of indefinite payments are governed have been discussed. Clearly before any consideration is given as to the order in which the debts have arisen it must be asked, to which of the debts would the allocation be most beneficial to the debtor? (where the purpose for which a payment is made is unspecified it must be carried to that account which it is most beneficial to the debtor to reduce). Only if it was of no more benefit to the debtor which of the accounts payment was applied to could it be said that allocating non-matching payments to any arrears would be in accordance with established case law.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devaynes_v... (Clayton's Case)

"In the absence, therefore, of any express declaration by either, the inquiry was, what application would be most beneficial to the debtor. The payment was, consequently, applied to the most burthensome debt...and, if the debts were equal, then to that which had been first contracted."

It is noteworthy that the Sri Lankan case, Ephraims v. Jansz (1895) 3 N.L.R. 142, similarly discussed the rules relating to the appropriation of payments in the context of the onerous nature of debt due on several accounts. The condition in the below quoted from the judgment could not be more relevant to the circumstances that are in issue with Council Tax liability:

https://www.lawnet.gov.lk/wp-content/upl... (Ephraims v. Jansz)

"If no such appropriation is made at the time of payment, the creditor must apply it to some claims which could be enforced at the time of payment and which at the moment is not in controversy."

Council Tax may be enforced (subject to payments being met) so a customer's in-year liability is not in controversy, providing his instalments are paid when due. An unspecified payment then, applying this principle, would have clearly been misappropriated if the council applied it to arrears so causing his in-year liability instalment to have not been met.

But regardless of whether the principle in the Sri Lankan case can be relied on, a customer having one liability more onerous for him than another must have his payment if it were unspecified carried to that account which it is most beneficial for him to reduce in line with other case authority mentioned.

The council's processing system applies payments in respect of the customer's implied intention but on a severely restricted basis (solely on the sum paid corresponding with an instalment amount). A payment matching a specific liability covers only one of several ways that the taxpayer's election may be implied. For example, case authority has consistently found that a debtor's intention may be indicated from the circumstances of the transaction (see Khandanpour v Chambers [2019] EWCA Civ 570 "Appropriation" from para 25). https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ...

A debtor's payment pattern could indicate a debtor's intention to appropriate payment to a particular debt, so if a pattern had emerged of a customer's payment being made and accepted as credited to a particular debt then it would be inferred from the nature of the transaction, even if not expressed at the time by the customer, that he intended to ascribe it to that account. A customer having one liability more onerous for him than another must have his payment if it were unspecified carried to that account which it is most beneficial for him to reduce.

A customer who would be caused the additional burden from recovery action being taken in respect of his in-year liability as a consequence of payment being applied to his arrears, would clearly have intended his payment to be appropriated to his in-year liability to avoid unnecessary additional costs etc. Evidence of an intent to appropriate, although falling short of being express, would be provided in those particular circumstances to be an election to pay specifically on the current year's liability (the inference from the circumstances of a transaction is just as valid an election to pay specifically on one of several accounts as if his election were expressed).

A customer who made payment in an amount sufficient to prevent his in-year liability falling in arrears would have good cause to bring legal proceedings against the council if it were to allocate his payment to a previous year's charge (thus unnecessarily burdening him further) merely because it did not match the instalment amount. In any event, I understand that a billing authority's duty, as a priority, is to maintain a customer's in-year account with payments received in respect of his liability, so logically the frequency with which payment would be correctly applied would be maximised (under automated conditions) if the parameters in the Council Tax processing system were set so that any unspecified payments were applied to the current year's charge.

Yours faithfully,

S Staffordson

FOI, Haringey Borough Council

Dear Mr Staffordson,

We have noted your comments but as far as the FOI process is concerned, you have exhausted it. If you are unhappy with the response you can, as advised, approach the Information Commissioner.

regards

Sue Dyos
Feedback Team Leader
Corporate and Customer Services
Haringey Council

show quoted sections

Dear FOI,

Thank you for your reply, although I did indicate in my previous email that I would not be pursuing this further. However, your Monitoring Officer might wish to look at this from the following perspective:

Let's say a Customer has an outstanding balance of £50.00 secured by a Magistrates' court Liability Order from a previous year's charge. This gives councils the power to use various enforcement methods to collect the debt and adds costs to the arrears. The standard costs rubber stamped by the court are in the sum of £115.00 so the total amount owing the council for that year's charge has increased to £165.00. The customer now has his in-year Council Tax obligation to meet as well as the amount secured by a court order from the previous year's charge.

The customer's in-year payments are set at £121.95 for the first instalment and £120.00 for the remaining nine (£1,201.95 in total). The customer makes his first payment of £122.00 but because the council's system applies payments that do not exactly match to the oldest debt, his in-year Council Tax obligations have been detected by the computer system to have not been met even though the payment was made in sufficient an amount to prevent his in-year liability falling in arrears. Although Council Tax liability consists of distinct insulated debts, between which a plain line of separation can be drawn, the benefit to the council is the same (£122.00) whether payment is applied to the in-year account or arrears so there is no legitimate advantage for the council nor justification in engineering a further burden for the customer in respect of his in-year liability. The previous year's debt has already been secured with a court order which has no time limit restricting its use.

It is therefore reasonable to suspect that the council allocates non-matching payments to the arrears thus imposing an additional £115.00 standard costs in respect of the in-year engineered non-payment for a non-legitimate reason. But there is no theoretical advantage to the council in respect of the costs it claims because the law only entitles it to claim the actual expenditure it incurs. It would therefore be self defeating if the council were to go about obtaining court orders merely to benefit from the application if its costs claim was genuine and not inflated. Another possible motive would be to punish the customer, but this is troublesome for the council because it is making use of the Magistrates' court unnecessarily and in so doing burdening the customer with a further £115.00 debt. This by definition is penalising the customer with imposed costs which is impermissible according to established case authority. It was held on judicial review of a licensing case R v Highgate Justices ex parte Petrou [1954] 1 ALL ER 406 that costs should not exceed the proper costs incurred and should not be a penalty.

In the more recent case it was held that the Magistrates were bound to decide the matter of costs in accordance with the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 (the court needs to be satisfied that it was reasonable for the council to incur them) i.e. they would not reasonably have been incurred if it was not reasonable for the council to take steps to enforce payment (see paras 34 and 51 of R (Nicolson) v Tottenham Magistrates [2015] EWHC 1252) http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admi...

In the aforementioned scenario the council would have impermissibly obtained a court order to enforce the misappropriated £122.00 element of the liability TWICE. This is because the payment which was intended to be applied to the in-year liability was misapplied to the arrears.

Each year's liability is a distinct debt so if the council has a secured debt in respect of one year's charge it cannot use the same court order to enforce payment if a customer defaults in a subsequent year (another order must be obtained from the court). However, the court order securing £165.00 debt from a previous year was effectively used to collect the sum of £122.00 which was actually paid in respect of the in-year liability (the amount secured by the previous court order reduced to £43.00). The customer's in-year liability did not only remain unchanged as a result of the misapplied £122.00 payment it actually increased by £115.00 because of the court costs attributable to the council's further application to the Magistrates' court (the in-year liability increased to £1,316.95 which was secured by a fresh court order).

The upshot of all this is that the customer has outstanding liability relating to two separate debts, each independently subject to enforcement by the various oppressive methods enabled by the court order. The customer's overall indebtedness arising from the misappropriated payment has immediately increased by £115.00 because of unnecessary court costs. In engineering the default, the council has clearly been shown to have unlawfully used an order securing a previous year's debt to enforce payment from the in-year liability which was perversely the cause of the Council Tax processing system triggering recovery in respect of the in-year liability (the same £122.00 amount has been subject to enforcement by two separate court orders).

Yours sincerely,

S Staffordson