South West Regional Office
Customer Service & Performance
Lynx House
Pynes Hill Campus
Rydon Lane
Exeter
EX2 5JL
T 01392 331730
F 0870 739 4378
E xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxx.xxx.xxx.xx
Mr B Frodham
www.justice.gov.uk
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx
Our Ref: 99123
Date: 18 August 2015
Dear Mr Frodham,
Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) – Outcome of Internal Review
Thank you for your Internal Review request dated 21 July 2015 regarding a Freedom
of Information request in which you asked for:
‘I forgot to include the questions in my 9 January 2015 email after I had tried to
put my FOI in perspective.
The additional revenue refers to that from the Magistrates' court fee paid on
making complaint for a council tax liability order.
Again:
Q1. Please disclose whatever information the Ministry of Justice holds relating
to any estimates or forecasts it made regarding additional revenue it would
secure (because of the benefit reforms) through the Magistrates' court fee in
liability order applications.
Q2. Since the introduction of benefit reforms, how much in respect of each
relevant year does the additional revenue through court fees amount to?
Q3. What purpose has the additional revenue generated (Q.2) been used.
And you clarified on 22 May 2015 by providing:
The legislation would appear to be the 'Welfare Reform Act 2012' which came
into force on 1 April 2013.
One relevant provisions of the Act is the change to housing benefit (more
commonly known as 'the bedroom tax'). This would affect (by increasing) the
amount of income generated for the MoJ in respect of Magistrates' Court fees
because of a surge in the number of these people who would be summonsed
for non-payment because the changes include an "under-occupancy penalty"
which reduces the amount of benefit paid to claimants if they are deemed to
have too much living space in the property they are renting.
Another relevant provision of the Act is the change to Council Tax Benefit for
which the responsibility for assessment of claims and payments is shifted to
local authorities, who are empowered to set their own local criteria and benefit
amounts but with the budget available from central government being reduced
by 10%. This would similarly increase the amount of income generated for the
MoJ in respect of Magistrates' Court fees because of a surge in the number
being summonsed for non-payment.
For similar reasons the 'Benefit Cap' which the Act now limits the total amount
of money available to social security claimants would generate more income
for the MoJ in respect of Magistrates' Court fees.
For further clarification the specific dates required would be by year since the
introduction of the Welfare Reform (1 April 2013) to date.’
In your email of 21 July you said
‘Regarding your attachment (letter dated 19 June 2015)…you appear to have
misread the questions relating to the required information…
The first question asks for estimates or forecasts off additional revenue
(council tax liability order court fees) that would result in creating the extra
financial burden on claimants due to the introduction of the Welfare Reform
Act 2012
The Second question should simply be a case of taking away the total court
income (presumed higher) since the reforms were introduced, from the total
income pre-reforms.
The third question can not really be further clarified…’
The purpose of an Internal Review is to assess how your Freedom of Information
request was handled in the first instance and to determine whether the original
decision given to you was correct. This is an independent review: I was not involved
in the original decision.
I have reassessed your case and after careful consideration I have concluded that
the initial response that was sent to you was compliant with the requirements of the
FOIA. An explanation of my decision follows.
Your original request was sent on 22 May 2015, clarifying your earlier request
of 22 March 2015. The response was successfully sent to you on 23 June
2015, one day outside the statutory 20 day deadline. An attempt had been
made to send the response to you on 19 June 2015, but failed due to a
procedural oversight. Please accept our apologies for this delay.
Your original request was refused on the basis that HMCTS does not hold the
information requested
Section 16 of the FoIA (to provide advice and assistance) was complied with
in the original response by providing you with links and information relating to
the Disclosure log and the full text of the Act
The original KILO searched for the information by making enquiries with
Finance and Governance Directorate, Civil Operations team and Magistrates’
Operations Team, who confirmed that the information you requested was not
held by HMCTS.
As part of my review of your case, I have made further enquiries with the Finance
and Governance Team, Strategy and Change Team, Analytical Team and Statistics
Team, who have all been able to confirm that the information requested is not held by
HMCTS. I have further clarified this response in each of your three questions below:
Q1. Please disclose whatever information the Ministry of Justice holds relating
to any estimates or forecasts it made regarding additional revenue it would
secure (because of the benefit reforms) through the Magistrates' court fee in
liability order applications.
Although data is held on Revenue generated by fee payments, the MoJ did not make
any estimates or forecasts anticipating additional revenue from benefit reforms.
Q2. Since the introduction of benefit reforms, how much in respect of each
relevant year does the additional revenue through court fees amount to?
To address your comment in your email of 21 July; it cannot be assumed that any
change in revenue is a direct result of the introduction of benefit reforms. A number
of factors would influence this, for example fee increases, or an increase in another
type of case unrelated to the benefit reforms.
Our magistrates' courts case management system does not hold the data to allow us
to identify specific reasons for individual council tax liability orders due the fact that
they are bulk listed and a single list could contain single or multiple applications.
Specific information relating to the reasons for an individual application by a Local
Authority would not normally be recorded on records held at the court because we
have no legal obligation to do so. To do so would mean creating new information to
answer your request which, as explained in the original response, we are not obliged
to do under the FoIA.
Q3. What purpose has the additional revenue generated (Q.2) been used.
No analysis has taken place of the use of revenue as a result of benefit reform.
Please note, however, that it is the Government’s aim that fee income covers 100%
of the cost of providing court services, minus the cost of the remissions system (fee
waivers).
It might be helpful to inform you that HMCTS publish yearly Business Plans which
contain some financial data. HMCTS Business Plan 2013/14 can be found at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/38643
6/hmcts-business-plan-2013-14.pdf
In conclusion, I am satisfied that the response you received on 23 June 2015 was
correct in refusing your request on the basis that the information is not held by
HMCTS; I therefore uphold the original response.
You have the right to appeal our decision if you think it is incorrect. Details can be
found in the ‘How to Appeal’ section attached at the end of this letter.
Disclosure Log
You can also view information that the Ministry of Justice has disclosed in response
to previous Freedom of Information requests. Responses are anonymised and
published on our on-line disclosure log which can be found on the MoJ website:
http://www.justice.gov.uk/information-access-rights/latest-disclosure-log
The published information is categorised by subject area and in alphabetical order.
Yours sincerely
K Brooks (Mrs)
Knowledge and Information Liaison Officer
Business Support, Regional Support Unit, SW Region, HMCTS
How to Appeal
Information Commissioner’s Office
If you remain dissatisfied after an internal review decision, you have the right to apply
to the Information Commissioner’s Office. The Commissioner is an independent
regulator who has the power to direct us to respond to your request differently, if he
considers that we have handled it incorrectly.
You can contact the Information Commissioner’s Office at the following address:
Information Commissioner’s Office,
Wycliffe House,
Water Lane,
Wilmslow,
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Internet address: https://www.ico.org.uk/Global/contact_us