Council Tax Summons Cost Calculation - Unlawful standard sum

Ron made this Freedom of Information request to Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council This request has been closed to new correspondence. Contact us if you think it should be reopened.

The request was partially successful.

Dear Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council,

I have seen figures in a news article dated 30 December 2015 (Wigan Today) relating to Wigan Council's 2015 council tax court costs calculation and arrived at the conclusion that they do not (or appear not to) comply with the restrictions laid down in the relevant Statutory Instrument (SI 1992/613). By applying a standard level of costs in all cases it seems obvious that a significant number of taxpayers are being charged approximately 10 times the amount that Wigan council has incurred in respect of instituting the summons (£65), see article below.

"Authority justifies its council tax collection methods"

http://www.wigantoday.net/news/local/aut...

The amount claimed by way of costs in any individual case must be no more than that reasonably incurred by the billing authority

(https://www.scribd.com/doc/283416919/Def... para 51).

Therefore, if Wigan council wanted to take advantage of streamlining the administration process by applying a standard sum in all cases , in order for it to be done lawfully, it would need to forfeit each element of expenditure it incurs that is not common to every application (the majority of costs which are accounted for in its breakdown).

(https://www.scribd.com/doc/283416919/Def... paras 47–51)

In other words, a standard sum could not exceed that incurred by the authority in a case where the least expenditure is attributed, which would in practice relate to a taxpayer settling his outstanding debt on receipt of a summons without contacting the council on any issue. Deriving a figure therefore from the 'total expense associated with each year’s hearings' which is split between an estimated number of summons, can not be lawful; even less so if the number of summons is reduced to factor in an estimate for those withdrawn, waived and those in respect of unrecoverable costs. The least cost case is the only basis on which to determine a standard sum if the aim is to eliminate the administrative burden of calculating the costs in each case, whilst at the same time complying with the regulations which require that the costs be no more than that incurred by the authority in any individual case.

If the Regulations were applied lawfully, the consequences would be that the majority of 'the total expense associated with each year’s hearings' (£1,619,257), would not be permissible in respect of re-charging expenditure for instituting the complaint. What is set-out above should be enough to satisfy the Magistrates' court that Wigan council's claims are not reasonable in the context of the relevant law and should (as is legally required) question the council's claim with a view to lowering the costs accordingly.

Q. If Wigan council claim that my assertions are wrong, which is more likely than not, I request Wigan council disclose the evidence it holds which will support that inflating the summons costs for a significant number of defendants in order to apply a standard charge, is a lawful approach.

Yours faithfully,

Ron

Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council

Thank you for your enquiry to the Freedom of Information mailbox.

Please note that these offices are closed from 24th December 2015 until 4th January 2016 and this mailbox will not be monitored during that time. Monitoring will resume on Monday, 4th January 2016 and your enquiry will be processed as soon as possible.

show quoted sections

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom
they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please
notify the system manager.

Email may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded
for legal purposes.

As a public body, the Council may be required to disclose this
email or any response to it under the Freedom of Information
Act 2000 unless the information in it is covered by one of the
exemptions in the Act.

This footnote also confirms that this email has been swept for
the presence of computer viruses.

Ms Molly left an annotation ()

Hello Ron,

The jurisdiction of these summonses / hearings is also in doubt. They do not operate under the M.O.J. or H.M.C.T.S. There are no Civil Procedure Rules being followed. There is no disclosure and discovery or records held regarding hearings, Liability Orders, Summonses or awards.

You will not receive a response to this F.O.I. I am sorry to say.

Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council

Dear Ron,

Further to your Freedom of Information request received via email I must draw your attention to the following guidance from the Information Commissioner's website regarding what makes a valid FoI request:

To be valid under the Act, the request must:
- be in writing;
- include the requester's real name;
- include an address for correspondence. This need not be the person's residential or work address - it can be any address at which you can write to them, including a postal address or email address;
- describe the information requested.

https://ico.org.uk/for_organisations/fre...

Your email to us of 30th December 2015 does not include a full name and this may have been an oversight. I would be obliged if you could provide a name in order to validate the request before we can proceed.

Regards,
Kath MacDonald

Complaints and Information Officer
Resources Directorate
Wigan Council
Town Hall, Library Street, Wigan WN1 1YN
www.wigan.gov.uk
www.twitter.com/wigancouncil
www.facebook.com/WiganCouncilOnline

As a public body, the Council may be required to disclose this email or any response to it under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 unless the information in it is covered by one of the exemptions in the Act.
This email together with any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual to whom they are addressed. The information may be covered by legal professional privilege. Do not copy, disclose or distribute the information. If you are not the addressee, please contact the sender and immediately delete this email and any attachments'
Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to.

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
______________________________________________________________________

Dear Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council,

I don't have any objection to providing my name, however, Wigan Council should really get with it and think about the nature of Freedom of Information requests which are applicant blind.

Yours faithfully,

N. Gilliatt AKA Ron

Tim Turner left an annotation ()

The response has to be applicant blind (although not even that applies if costs or vexatiousness are being considered). However, a request that does not have the actual name of the applicant is not valid in the first place. Section 8 of the FOI Act requires 'the name' of the applicant - not 'a name'. The Council is allowed to ask for the real name.

Ron (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

Thank you Tim.

I was not really contesting the council's obligations under the FOI Act, it was just suggested it took a commons sense approach.

Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council

1 Attachment

Please quote ID   8061    on all correspondence/emails/faxes

Dear   Sir,  

  

I am emailing to confirm the receipt of your recent FOI request to Wigan
Council . 

We will respond as soon as possible and in any case no later
than   5th February 2016, which is 20 working days after the receipt
of  confirmation of your full name. This has been logged and will be
forwarded to the relevant department for action.  

If you have any comments or questions in the meantime, please direct them
to [1][Wigan Council request email], or to Complaints and Information Team,
Resources Directorate, Wigan Council, PO Box 100, WN1 3DS

 

The Council does not charge for most FOI requests, but charges may be made
for actual disbursements incurred such as photocopying, printing, postage
and packaging, and only if these charges amount to more than £20.00. If a
charge is to be made, confirmation of the payment due will be given before
the information is provided and payment may be requested prior to the
provision of the information.

 

Your contact is Kath MacDonald.

 

Regards

Complaints and Information Team

Resources Directorate
Wigan Council, PO Box 100

Town Hall, Library Street, Wigan WN1 3DS
[2]www.wigan.gov.uk
[3]www.twitter.com/wigancouncil
[4]www.facebook.com/WiganCouncilOnline

[5]Description: http://www.wigan.gov.uk/pub/images/logoe...

As a public body, the Council may be required to disclose this email or
any response to it under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 unless the
information in it is covered by one of the exemptions in the Act.

 

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
______________________________________________________________________

References

Visible links
1. blocked::mailto:[Wigan Council request email] mailto:[Wigan Council request email]
file:///tmp/blocked::mailto:[Wigan Council request email]
2. outbind://98/www.wigan.gov.uk
file:///tmp/outbind:/98/www.wigan.gov.uk
3. outbind://98/www.twitter.com/wigancouncil
file:///tmp/outbind:/98/www.twitter.com/wigancouncil
4. http://www.facebook.com/WiganCouncilOnline outbind://98/www.facebook.com/WiganCouncilOnline
http://www.facebook.com/WiganCouncilOnline

Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council

3 Attachments

Dear Sir,

I am writing to respond to your freedom of information request recently
received. This request has been handled under the Freedom of Information
Act 2000.

Wigan Council do not inflate summons costs.  The level of costs applied
for is calculated to reflect the cost of taking action against individuals
who do not pay in accordance with their bill.  If awarded by the court
these costs are recoverable from the debtor, thus minimising the financial
burden on taxpayers of the authority in general.  The Council has not
raised the level of these costs since 2010.  Attached is a recent
calculation of summons costs.  As we do not accept that the Council is
inflating summons costs there is nothing to add.

If you are unhappy with any aspect of this response, an independent senior
officer will review this decision. If you are not satisfied with our
response you must put your complaint in writing within 40 working days of
receipt of this response giving the reasons for your complaint.  You can
either email [1][Wigan Council request email] or write to the Complaints and
Information Team at the address below.

You can also complain to the Information Commissioner, who is the
regulator for Freedom of Information. His website is
[2]https://ico.org.uk/ and his helpline number is 0303 1231113.

His staff may ask you to exhaust our internal complaints procedure if you
choose to complain to his office now.

May I take this opportunity to apologise for the delay in responding to
your request, this is due to the high volumes currently being received.

Kind Regards

Complaints and Information Team

Resources Directorate
Wigan Council, PO Box 100
Town Hall, Library Street, Wigan WN1 3DS

[3]www.wigan.gov.uk
[4]www.twitter.com/wigancouncil
[5]www.facebook.com/WiganCouncilOnline

 

 [6]http://www.wigan.gov.uk/pub/images/logoe...

[7]cid:image004.jpg@01D03EF8.8FA151B0

As a public body, the Council may be required to disclose this email or
any response to it under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 unless the
information in it is covered by one of the exemptions in the Act.

This email together with any files transmitted with it are confidential
and intended solely for the use of the individual to whom they are
addressed. The information may be covered by legal professional privilege.
Do not copy, disclose or distribute the information. If you are not the
addressee, please contact the sender and immediately delete this email and
any attachments'

Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to.

 

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
______________________________________________________________________

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[Wigan Council request email]
2. https://ico.org.uk/
3. file:///D:\WTSRV\Profiles\k_macd\Application%20Data\Microsoft\Signatures\www.wigan.gov.uk
4. file:///D:\WTSRV\Profiles\k_macd\Application%20Data\Microsoft\Signatures\www.twitter.com\wigancouncil
5. file:///D:\WTSRV\Profiles\k_macd\Application%20Data\Microsoft\Signatures\www.facebook.com\WiganCouncilOnline

Dear Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council,

Thank you for your reply.

I notice that the relevant regulations have been interpreted misleadingly, i.e, ‘costs reasonably incurred’. This implies that the council may lawfully include whatever expenditure it considers is connected with recovery, however tenuously linked to the process.

The relevant regulations in fact provide only for incurred expenditure to be recharged "up to the time of the payment or tender" which because the summons costs are added as standard to the taxpayer's account on serving the summons can not include any additional expenditure. That being the case the activities up until this point can not possibly account for 50% of the costs of the service. However, the "service" would require defining before any useful analysis of the costs could be carried out.

Yours faithfully,

Ron

Dorothy Matricks (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

I marked this request as partially successful. The information was provided albeit raising a question about whether it complied with the law. The Freedom of Information Act doesn't require that the information held should comply with the law only that it is disclosed if the public body holds it.