Costs in obtaining a liability order for default of council tax payments

Response to this request is long overdue. By law, under all circumstances, Hackney Borough Council should have responded by now (details). You can complain by requesting an internal review.

Dear Hackney Borough Council,
1) Please can I have a breakdown (of each element) of the actual minimum, average and maximum costs (reasonable amount) incurred by the council in obtaining a liability order (or in seeking to obtain one before the respondent capitulates) for non payment of council tax for 2014/15?
2) How many council tax liability orders had been issued?
My request only pertains to, after it had been decided to go ahead obtaining the order until the order has been made and includes delivery of the order itself. I understand most of these orders are done in bulk.
I understand that final reminders are required prior and would like them listed separately.
I understand that there are for example court fees, one person in attendance at the court, the printout that is brought with, the use of a laptop, the printing and posting of the summons and liability order to name but some of the elements. I request a list of each element and its individual costs.
I understand that the council has this data as it must know (or be told) enough to ensure that nothing that it is necessary, because it is legally relevant, for it to know, is left out of account in order for it to have set an envisaged amount in the first place.

Yours faithfully,

Mustaf Hassan

Hackney Borough Council

[1]London Borough of Hackney logo

Dear Mr Hassan,

FOI Ref: FOI15-0604-16175

Thank you for submitting a Freedom of Information request. Your reference
number is FOI15-0604-16175.

Your request will be responded to within 20 working days.

Yours sincerely,

Information Management Team - FOI

[2][email address]

The contents of this email are confidential to the intended recipient at
the email address to which it has been addressed. It may not be disclosed
to or used by anyone other than this addressee, nor may it be copied in
any way. If received in error, please contact Hackney Council,
www.hackney.gov.uk on 020 8356 3000 quoting the name of the sender and the
addressee and then delete it from your system. Please note that neither
Hackney Council nor the sender accepts any responsibility for viruses and
it is your responsibility to scan the email and attachments (if any). No
contracts may be concluded on behalf of Hackney Council by means of email
communications.Please note that Hackney Council reserves the right to
monitor emails for the purpose of monitoring or communications relevant to
the Company’s business under the Telecommunications (Lawful Business
Practice) (Interception Of Communications) Regulations 2000 (S.I.
2000/2699) ("the Regulations") for the following reasons: to investigate
or detect the unauthorised use of the systems, e.g. that this policy is
being observed, that no discriminatory or offensive content appears in
emails; to maintain an adequate level of security for our computer
systems; to detect any computer viruses; to check mailboxes of absent
employees. To exercise its right under the Regulations, Hackney Council
must have made all reasonable efforts to inform every person who may use
the system that interception may take place and this notice to you should
be regarded as such notification..

References

Visible links
2. mailto:[email address]

Dear Hackney Borough Council,
I understand that this information was supposed to have been readily to hand. I therefore expected this information as soon as reasonably practicable. We are now past this stage.
The 20 days are only a ‘long stop’ as the ICO state in the guidence as below.

Requirement to respond promptly
21. The obligation to respond promptly means that an authority should comply with a request as soon as is reasonably practicable.
22. Whilst this is linked to the obligation to respond within 20 working days, it should be treated as a separate requirement.
23. An authority will therefore need to both respond promptly and within 20 working days in order to comply with section 10(1).24. Authorities should regard the 20 working day limit as a ‘long stop’, in other words the latest possible date on which they may issue a response.
25. It also follows that an authority which provides its response close to, or on, the final day of the 20 working day limit ought to be able to both account for, and justify, the length of time taken to comply with the request.

Yours faithfully,

Mustaf Hassan

Information Management, Hackney Borough Council

Dear Mustaf Hassan,

I apologise for the time taken to respond to your FOI request.
I have raise this with the service area and I assure you that a response will be provided shortly.

Regards

show quoted sections

Dear Information Management,
Please can you keep me updated. We are bu now past the last date.
Yours sincerely,

Mustaf Hassan

Information Management, Hackney Borough Council

1 Attachment

Dear Mustaf Hassan

 

Please find attached the response to your FoI request.

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

Information Management Team

 

Email:  [1][email address

 

[2]www.Hackney.gov.uk

 

The contents of this email are confidential to the intended recipient at
the email address to which it has been addressed. It may not be disclosed
to or used by anyone other than this addressee, nor may it be copied in
any way. If received in error, please contact Hackney Council,
www.hackney.gov.uk on 020 8356 3000 quoting the name of the sender and the
addressee and then delete it from your system. Please note that neither
Hackney Council nor the sender accepts any responsibility for viruses and
it is your responsibility to scan the email and attachments (if any). No
contracts may be concluded on behalf of Hackney Council by means of email
communications.Please note that Hackney Council reserves the right to
monitor emails for the purpose of monitoring or communications relevant to
the Company’s business under the Telecommunications (Lawful Business
Practice) (Interception Of Communications) Regulations 2000 (S.I.
2000/2699) ("the Regulations") for the following reasons: to investigate
or detect the unauthorised use of the systems, e.g. that this policy is
being observed, that no discriminatory or offensive content appears in
emails; to maintain an adequate level of security for our computer
systems; to detect any computer viruses; to check mailboxes of absent
employees. To exercise its right under the Regulations, Hackney Council
must have made all reasonable efforts to inform every person who may use
the system that interception may take place and this notice to you should
be regarded as such notification..

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
2. http://www.hackney.gov.uk/

Dear Information Management,
Thank you for the reply (late as it was).
My question was costs incurred and not those charged. We are now all aware (previously not so) after R (on the application of THE REVEREND PAUL NICOLSON) -v-TOTTENHAM MAGISTRATES http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admi... as to what may and what may not be included into the costs incurred. The figure of £78.00 just does not tally with the allowable costs. According to my calculation it would nearer to the £15 – 20 mark. I therefore ask once again what the costs incurred were? It would be an illegal act if the council charge or proclaim (under oath) costs and yet not in line with those allowed and actually incurred. The council therefore have a legal duty to have this breakdown in the first place and present this breakdown to the magistrates.
I therefore assume that the council are going to put before the magistrates a revised costs to be agreed. If this is the case can I have the date and time of the venue and how and where I can send any objections.
If the council do not intend re-presenting to the magistrate the revised amounts I will need the reason why.

Yours sincerely,

Mustaf Hassan

Information Management, Hackney Borough Council

Dear Mustaf Hassan,

Thank you for your email. I have forwarded to the service area for consideration.

A response should be provided shortly.

Kind regards

Bayo Oyelese

show quoted sections

Information Management, Hackney Borough Council

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Hassan

 

Please find attached the Council’s response to your internal review
request.

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

Information Governance Team   

 

[1][email address

[2]www.Hackney.gov.uk

 

The contents of this email are confidential to the intended recipient at
the email address to which it has been addressed. It may not be disclosed
to or used by anyone other than this addressee, nor may it be copied in
any way. If received in error, please contact Hackney Council,
www.hackney.gov.uk on 020 8356 3000 quoting the name of the sender and the
addressee and then delete it from your system. Please note that neither
Hackney Council nor the sender accepts any responsibility for viruses and
it is your responsibility to scan the email and attachments (if any). No
contracts may be concluded on behalf of Hackney Council by means of email
communications.Please note that Hackney Council reserves the right to
monitor emails for the purpose of monitoring or communications relevant to
the Company’s business under the Telecommunications (Lawful Business
Practice) (Interception Of Communications) Regulations 2000 (S.I.
2000/2699) ("the Regulations") for the following reasons: to investigate
or detect the unauthorised use of the systems, e.g. that this policy is
being observed, that no discriminatory or offensive content appears in
emails; to maintain an adequate level of security for our computer
systems; to detect any computer viruses; to check mailboxes of absent
employees. To exercise its right under the Regulations, Hackney Council
must have made all reasonable efforts to inform every person who may use
the system that interception may take place and this notice to you should
be regarded as such notification..

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
2. http://www.hackney.gov.uk/

Dear Information Management,

Thank you for coming back to me yet once again.
My previous communication on the 6th of July was a clarification and not yet a question of a review request. The reply (again late as it was) has not answered my questions. I ask again this to be treated as a clarification and as yet not a review of a refusal. The council are well aware (or should be) that most of the charges that have historically been charged are actually disallowed. This has now been clarified in the R (on the application of THE REVEREND PAUL NICOLSON) -v-TOTTENHAM MAGISTRATES case.
The reply received was that the current charges are on the basis of the previous years costs reasonably incurred. For the above mentioned reason this is not allowed and can not be true.
My original FoI request from the 4th of June (and its clarification on the 6th of July), as yet remain unanswered.

Yours sincerely,

Mustaf Hassan

Ron (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

Hackney's 3 November 2015 response sets out an interesting interpretation of Reverend Paul Nicolson v Tottenham Magistrates' judgment:

......In your request, you ask for a specific breakdown of the costs incurred in respect of each liability order, and give as examples the summons issue fee and postage charges. As was explained in the initial response, the Council has not itemised its costs in this manner and so that original response has to be upheld by this review.

I would, however, add that in her judgement of R (on the application of the Reverend Paul Nicolson) v Tottenham Magistrates, Mrs Justice Andrews DBE states "it may be a legitimate approach for a local authority to calculate and aggregate the relevant costs it has incurred in the previous year, and divide that up by the previous (or anticipated) number of summonses over twelve months so as to provide an average figure which could be levied across the board in "standard” cases, but could be amplified in circumstances where there was justification for incurring additional legal and/or administrative costs."

Given this, there is, as yet, no specific requirement on the Council to hold an in- depth analysis of the individual costs relevant for each liability order, (which would, in fact, vary considerably depending on the particular circumstances, for example the level and complexity of correspondence received, the number (and duration) of telephone calls, whether or not the debtor appears at court, request(s) for adjournment(s), etc.)

It is hoped that this issue will have greater legal clarity once the final outcome of the Reverend Nicolson v Tottenham Magistrates case is known after the appeal is heard. In the meantime, I can assure you that the London Borough of Hackney has been, and will continue to be, taking positive action to encourage the payment of Council Tax before any recovery action and its associated additional costs become necessary.....

Ron (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

"I would, however, add that in her judgement of R (on the application of the Reverend Paul Nicolson) v Tottenham Magistrates, Mrs Justice Andrews DBE states "it may be a legitimate approach for a local authority to calculate and aggregate the relevant costs it has incurred in the previous year, and divide that up by the previous (or anticipated) number of summonses over twelve months so as to provide an average figure which could be levied across the board in "standard” cases, but could be amplified in circumstances where there was justification for incurring additional legal and/or administrative costs."

Given this, there is, as yet, no specific requirement on the Council to hold an in- depth analysis of the individual costs relevant for each liability order, (which would, in fact, vary considerably depending on the particular circumstances, for example the level and complexity of correspondence received, the number (and duration) of telephone calls, whether or not the debtor appears at court, request(s) for adjournment(s), etc.)"

This would seem to contest Hackney Borough Council's statement:

http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/show...

Ron (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

More of Hackney Borough Council's 8 November 2015 response:

"....the Council Tax Reduction Scheme is promoted to those who are more financially vulnerable; additional text messages are sent (where a mobile number is held) in each instance that a monthly instalment is late; final notices are sent where a reminder notice remains unpaid, (even though Council Tax legislation permits a straight progression to a summons in these circumstances), and an on-Iine arrangement facility is being introduced to offer those people who have lost their right to pay by instalments a final opportunity to create an arrangement to settle their debt monthly before such advanced recovery action is taken. (The opportunity to do this already exists, but requires that the person in default with their instalments rings the Council Tax Team. It is anticipated that the additional option the on-line facility will provide will make the process both easier and more widely accessible to those who might otherwise not be able to call during office hours).

Obviously each of these measures creates an additional cost to the Council, yet despite this, and as stated in the initial response to your request, the costs figure of £78.00 has not increased since 2006/07 and remains the lowest level in London.... "

Hackney Borough Council has a fundamental misunderstanding of what expenditure court costs are supposed to cover. The council makes an application to the Magistrates court for the court's permission to enforce the outstanding council tax owed, that is all.

Hackney obviously thinks it is entitled to cover the cost of administering the Council Tax Reduction Scheme and the other measures described, which ultimately help the council taxpayer avoid court costs. If those people aren't proceeded against, how then can that expenditure be reclaimed through court costs?