Ensuring customers are not subject to unnecessary recovery action, additional costs or hardship

The request was partially successful.

Dear Worcester City Council,

A council taxpayer who owes more than just the current year's liability runs the risk of incurring additional recovery costs through a further application for a liability order if payments which are intended for the current year's liability are allocated by the council's computer to the previous year's liability. This would most likely happen where a non specific payment is made and the computer software is set to automatically allocate these payments to the oldest year's debt.

Councils computer systems have the necessary flexibility to be set to allow non specific payments to be allocated to the arrears or the current year's liability.

I understand that the majority of billing authorities have their computer software set to ensure that their customers are not subject to unnecessary recovery action, additional costs or hardship, i.e. so non specific payments are allocated to the current year's liability.

How does Worcester City Council have its computer software set to deal with non specific payments. Current or oldest year's liability?

Yours faithfully,

Gwyn Worth

FOI, Worcester City Council

1 Attachment

[1]Description: Description: Description:
cid:image001.png@01D0E4A2.14F5EAC0

01/11/2017

Our Ref: 20170531/WW

Email: [2][Worcester City Council request email]

 

 

Dear Gwyn Worth,

 

Thank you for your below Freedom of Information request sent to Worcester
City Council.

 

Response:

How does Worcester City Council have its computer software set to deal
with non specific payments. Current or oldest year's liability?

 

If instalments do not match they are posted to the oldest debt if an
account is in arrears.

 

If you are dissatisfied with the handling of your request, you have the
right to ask for an internal review. Internal review requests should be
submitted no later than two months from the date of our response to your
original request. These requests should be sent by email to
[3][Worcester City Council request email] or to the following postal address:

 

The Monitoring Officer

Worcester City Council

The Guildhall

High Street

Worcester

WR1 2EY

 

If you are not content with the outcome of the internal review, you have
the right to apply directly to the Information Commissioner for a
decision. The Information Commissioner can be contacted at: Information
Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9
5AF.If you have any queries about this request please do not hesitate to
contact us. Please remember to quote the reference number above in any
future communications.

 

Yours sincerely,

William Wade

FOI Team

 

Dear FOI,

Thank you for stating that 'if instalments do not match they are posted to the oldest debt if an account is in arrears'.

Would you please confirm whether or not any measures are in place to check that allocating an unmatched payment to the oldest debt in these circumstances would have the consequences of putting the current year's liability also in arrears, and if so, in accordance with R. v Miskin Lower Justices [1953] 1 Q.B. 533, whether the payment would be moved in respect of the current year's account to avoid unnecessary recovery action, additional costs etc.?

Yours sincerely,

Gwyn Worth

FOI, Worcester City Council

1 Attachment

Dear Gwyn Worth,

 

Thank you for your below email. I have forward this to the relevant
service who have confirmed:

 

Payments are transferred when we become aware that the payment should have
gone to the current year. We do get reports on recovery cases which are
checked.

 

Many Thanks

 

William Wade

 

FOI TEAM

Worcester City Council

[1]www.worcester.gov.uk

[2]Description: council logo

 

Dear FOI,

Thank you for your clarification. I consider Worcester City Council has provided all the information I requested. The purpose of this exercise was to ascertain whether or not the principles surrounding the appropriation of payments were being adhered to.

R v Miskin Lower Justices (1953)

It was held in R v Miskin Lower Justices, that where an amount obviously relates to a specific liability, it would be an unwarranted assumption to allocate the payment elsewhere.

If no instruction is given at the time of payment, then the council has a duty to allocate payment to the account which it is most beneficial to the debtor to reduce. That would be in the majority of cases the current liability if the consequences of allocating payment to the arrears meant that the customer was subject to unnecessary recovery action, additional costs etc.

I understand by the council's response (see *note*) that there are comprehensive measures in place to ensure that unspecified payments are allocated to the account which it is least burdensome for the debtor, and consequently the laws surrounding the appropriation of payments are being complied with. This effectively means that an unmatched payment allocated to the oldest debt (having the consequences of putting the current year's liability also in arrears) would be reallocated to the current year's liability on account of the circumstances implying that this was the debtor's intention (least burdensome for the debtor). If it appears I have misunderstood anything by what I have stated I would appreciate if you would correct me.

*Note*: "Payments are transferred when we become aware that the payment should have gone to the current year. We do get reports on recovery cases which are checked"

Yours sincerely,

Gwyn Worth