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

The request was partially successful.

Dear Huntingdonshire District Council,

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

"We rely on previously decided case law:

If a payment completely matches an expected instalment sum, then it will be allocated to that debt.

If it does not match an expected instalment sum, it will generally be allocated to the oldest amount remaining due, unless the customer specifically requests that it is allocated to a particular debt."

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

Huntingdonshire District Council

1 Attachment

Dear S Staffordson,

RFI: 5917   (HDC)  Council tax payment allocation in accordance with R. v Miskin Lower
Justices [1953

Thank you for your request for information. Your request below will be forwarded to the
appropriate department to answer.

The Council makes the statement quoted below from the link:

[1]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/a...

 

"We rely on previously decided case law:

 

If a payment completely matches an expected instalment sum, then it will be allocated to
that debt.

 

If it does not match an expected instalment sum, it will generally be allocated to the
oldest amount remaining due, unless the customer specifically requests that it is allocated
to a particular debt."

 

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):

 

[2]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]?

 

We aim to respond to your request as soon as possible and within 20 working days. In the
meantime if you have any questions please contact us.

Yours sincerely

Information Management Team

3C Shared Services

Email:
For South Cambridgeshire DC - [email address]
For Cambridge City Council -[email address]
For Huntingdonshire DC - [Huntingdonshire District Council request email]

3C Shared Services is a strategic partnership between Cambridge City
Council, Huntingdonshire District Council and South Cambridgeshire
District Council

Appeals Process

The Council is committed to transparency and openness, and it is our
intention to comply fully with the laws that govern access to information.
If you have any cause to believe that the terms of the Freedom of
Information Act 2000 are not being met by us, please let us know in the
first instance. If you are still dissatisfied you can address your
complaint to the Information Governance Manager, who will undertake an
Internal Review of your case. Further to this you have the subsequent
option to contact the Information Commissioner’s Office.

Copyright

Provision of this information does not automatically infer the right to
copy publish or alter the information. In most cases the Council will own
the copyright of the information provided here, or the information will be
provided under the Open Government Licence (OGL), but the rights to some
information may belong to a third party and if so a re- use licence may be
required. Please contact us for advice.

References

Visible links
1. https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/a...
2. http://s000.tinyupload.com/index.php?fil...

Dear Huntingdonshire District Council,

Response to this request is delayed. By law, Huntingdonshire District Council should normally have responded promptly and by 15 October 2019.

Yours faithfully,

S Staffordson

Huntingdonshire District Council

1 Attachment

Dear S Staffordson,

Re: Request for Information (RFI: 5917)  (HDC) Debt Allocation

Thank you for your request for information above, which we have dealt with
under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

Unfortuantely, we don't have any information we can provide. FOI is a tool
for requesting recorded information and isn’t designed for asking for
value judgements or opinions. In this instance we don’t hold any
information relevant to your request and whether our policies align with a
particular piece of case-law isn’t a question we’re obliged to answer
through FOIA.

We aim to provide a high quality service to you and hope that you are
satisfied with this response. If you have any further questions please do
not hesitate to contact us.

Yours sincerely

Information Management Team

3C Shared Services

Email:

For South Cambridgeshire DC - [email address]

For Cambridge City Council -[email address]

For Huntingdonshire DC - [Huntingdonshire District Council request email]

3C Shared Services is a strategic partnership between Cambridge City
Council, Huntingdonshire District Council and South Cambridgeshire
District Council

Appeals Process

The Council is committed to transparency and openness, and it is our
intention to comply fully with the laws that govern access to information.
If you have any cause to believe that the terms of the FOI Act or EIR
Regulations are not being met by us, please let us know in the first
instance. If you are still dissatisfied you can address your complaint to
the Information Governance Manager who will undertake an Internal Review
of your case. Internal review requests should be submitted within two
months of the date of receipt of the response to your original request.
Further to this you have the subsequent option to contact the Information
Commissioner's Office.

Copyright

Provision of this information does not automatically infer the right to
copy publish or alter the information. In most cases the Council will own
the copyright of the information provided here, or the information will be
provided under the Open Government Licence (OGL), but the rights to some
information may belong to a third party and if so a re- use licence may be
required. Please contact us for advice.

Dear Huntingdonshire District 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

Dear Huntingdonshire District Council,

The review decision should have been provided by now.

Yours faithfully,

S Staffordson

FOI - HDC/3C,

Dear S.Staffordson

As per email you have attached below, we cannot provide the information
you have requested. From the system I can see that the case was closed
when this response was sent to you and I cannot find any further
correspondence relating to this case.

If you have any further questions please do not hesitate to contact us.

With Thanks

Information Governance Officer
3C Shared Services 

 
Telephone: 01480 388665
Email: [1][email address]

3C Shared Services is a strategic partnership between Cambridge City
Council, Huntingdonshire District Council and South Cambridgeshire
District Council

show quoted sections

Dear FOI - HDC/3C,

Here is my 18 October 2019 request for the decision to be reviewed:

"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 sincerely,

S Staffordson

Dear FOI - HDC/3C,

Further to my previous email I would like to add that my request asked "where did the council obtain the information regarding the appropriation of payments case law". The council may not have properly considered what I was asking.

Yours sincerely,

S Staffordson

Gray, Valerie (3C ICT),

2 Attachments

  • Attachment

    image001.png

    6K Download

  • Attachment

    RE Freedom of Information request Council tax payment allocation in accordance with R.v Miskin Lower Justices 1953 5917.html

    2K Download

Dear S Staffordson

 

In response

 

"where did the council obtain the information regarding the appropriation
of payments case law".

The council can neither confirm nor deny (this is information gathered
from various sources).

 

Regards

Valerie

 

Information Governance Manager/Data Protection Officer

3C Shared Services

 

[1]cid:320aa789-bbcf-4aa6-988a-c12160dce7fb

  

Phone: 07704 018816

Email: [2][email address]

 

Note: Available Monday to Thursday

 

3C Shared Services is a strategic partnership between Cambridge City
Council, Huntingdonshire District Council and South Cambridgeshire
District Council

 

 

 

From: S Staffordson <[3][FOI #604043 email]>
Sent: 13 December 2019 15:39
To: FOI - HDC/3C <[4][email address]>
Subject: RE: Freedom of Information request - Council tax payment
allocation in accordance with R. v Miskin Lower Justices [1953]

 

Dear FOI - HDC/3C,

Further to my previous email I would like to add that my request asked
"where did the council obtain the information regarding the appropriation
of payments case law". The council may not have properly considered what I
was asking.

Yours sincerely,

S Staffordson

show quoted sections

FOI - HDC/3C,

Dear Mr Staffordson

 

Response as follows:

 

"where did the council obtain the information regarding the appropriation
of payments case law".

The council can neither confirm nor deny (this is information gathered
from various sources).

 

Regards

Valerie

 

 

From: S Staffordson <[FOI #604043 email]>
Sent: 13 December 2019 15:39
To: FOI - HDC/3C <[email address]>
Subject: RE: Freedom of Information request - Council tax payment
allocation in accordance with R. v Miskin Lower Justices [1953]

 

Dear FOI - HDC/3C,

Further to my previous email I would like to add that my request asked
"where did the council obtain the information regarding the appropriation
of payments case law". The council may not have properly considered what I
was asking.

Yours sincerely,

S Staffordson

show quoted sections

Dear Huntingdonshire District Council,

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

I am writing to request an internal review of Huntingdonshire District 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. The following is an example of the kind of assessment that should have been documented.

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

P.S. 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 above should have been followed in arriving at the decision.

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, and the best chance of achieving that would be if the parameters in the Council Tax processing system were set so that any unspecified payments were applied to the current year's charge.

For example, 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.

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

Gray, Valerie (3C ICT),

Dear Sirs,
In response

This is not an FOI matter but reads as a complaint.
I suggest the customer contacts the relevant department and follows the
complaints process.

Regards
Valerie

show quoted sections

Dear Gray, Valerie (3C ICT),

No, this is a request for a review along with representations justifying why the request should be looked at again. The council is legally obliged to hold the requested information which makes it a reasonable expectation that it will be held.

Yours sincerely,

S Staffordson

Dear Gray, Valerie (3C ICT),

In anticipation of you not responding, I have decided against pursuing this. However, further to my email of 14 January 2020 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; "if a payment completely matches an expected instalment sum...", 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)

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.

P.S. Your Monitoring Officer might wish to look at this from the following perspective:

Let's say a Customer has an outstanding balance of £80.00 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 £70.00 so the total amount owing the council for that year's charge has increased to £150.00. 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 £70.00 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 £70.00 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 £150.00 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 £28.00). The customer's in-year liability did not only remain unchanged as a result of the misapplied £122.00 payment it actually increased by £70.00 because of the court costs attributable to the council's further application to the Magistrates' court (the in-year liability increased to £1,271.95 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 £70.00 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