Go to lawful rebellion.info for the most up to date information on council tax from our lawful rebels.
Pure law and pure original research by the best legal minds in the rebellion.
Council tax is treason.
Lance.

In the breakdown (agreed, a work of fiction) there is an inaccuracy @ No.6 (both times)
"Postage costs for summonses (60p) x 19,000 = £15,600"
Perhaps they need an audit?
It's true that in December 2013 their reply to Arnold Layne https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/1... said
"Total number of accounts summoned - 18,153" (close to 19,000) but they now maintain that there are some 26,000. (8,000 pa more real people defrauded?).
I also notice that in that same reply to Arnold Layne in Dec 2013 they saw it as proper to deduct the £179,000 "cost of customers progressing to reminder/final but not liability order stage" (quite correctly), but then suddenly in 2013/14 'costs' INCLUDED is "Recovery notices are sent monthly and generate a high number of enquiries. Recovery notices include reminders, second reminders and final notices." as well as including work on CTR schemes, which have nothing to do with a summons. In fact they are charging for work done to NOT send a summons!
Plus, also @ No.6, which 44,000 cases are these?
"Printing 44,000 at 35p per case - £15,400"
We all know that the 'case files' are sent electronically to the court, and consist simply of a list of names and allegedly overdue amounts (including fictional costs). Even if they were printed, 35p each for an inflated number is not credible.
It would be great if you could ask for clarification, but the history of Haringey blatantly ignoring or refusing FOI requests is disheartening.

RESPONSE:

Please note that the Freedom of Information Act gives people the right to access information that public authorities hold. We are under no obligation to create information to respond to a FOI request and while you may feel that the FOI Act gives you the right to put questions to us, this is not actually the case.

The Act does not give people a right to be given answers to questions that they would like to put to a public authority if this would mean creating new information or would involve giving opinion or judgement that is not already recorded.

We have responded to your requests comprehensively and constructively, however, due to the volume of your correspondence we will need to consider the costs of complying with any future FOI requests from you on this topic.

You have submitted six FOI requests this year as well as a number of follow-up queries on the same topic.

I do not doubt your quest to understand how the cost of Council Tax collection has been calculated is sincere, however, your inquiries are becoming burdensome and demanding a disproportionate commitment of staff time.

Section 13 of the Freedom of Information Act allows a public authority to charge for providing the information where the costs of complying with the request exceed a certain limit, which has been set £450.

Please note that when calculating the costs of responding to an FOI request, public authorities may take into account other requests made by the same person about the same matter and also any requests from other people where the requests are clearly connected.

I hope that you are satisfied with my response to your complaint.

Complaint to Information Commissioner's Office for Haringey Council's mishandling of this freedom of information request.

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House, Water Lane
Wilmslow, Cheshire
SK9 5AF

12 September 2016

Dear Sir/Madam

RE: INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF FOI REQUEST TO HARINGEY COUNCIL – REF NUMBER: LBH-5486516

I made a freedom of information request to Haringey Borough Council (‘HBC’). The details can be found on the “what do they know” website at the following address:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/c...
“Council Tax Summons (£130.77) - Grant Thornton case”

BACKGROUND

A response had been obtained to a previous request (LBH/5462316) made to HBC asking for a spreadsheet showing its calculation of cost per case of issuing a Council Tax summons referred to in the judgment of Nicolson v Grant Thornton UK LLP [2016] EWHC 710 (Admin) and which was supplied to Grant Thornton for the purposes of those proceedings.

On the following day (13 July 2016) HBC was asked to clarify the response in relation to some of the figures contained in the breakdown. In response HBC stated that a new request would need submitting.

Details of the request can be found on the “what do they know” website at the following address:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/c...

FOI REQUEST – 13 JULY 2016

The Council was asked the following:

“The breakdown would be meaningless to auditor Grant Thornton as an item of evidence required by law to be satisfied how the figure was arrived at, and what "costs" it represents to determine whether the costs were reasonably incurred and even more meaningless to the judge.

I would like information disclosing to justify the figures.

How has the figure £4.16 million been arrived at as the Cost of Council Tax collection. Please note that the figure stated in the CIPFA Benchmarking Club Council Tax 2014 is less than half that amount [ http://tinyurl.com/guwycyf ].

What further information does the council hold to support the figure £0.774 million attributable to (CTR) Council Tax Reduction (i.e. what is it?)

What further information does the council hold to support the percentages (60%, 80%, 80%, 60%) of Enforcement costs, direct costs, indirect costs and overheads respectively. "

RESPONSE – 5 AUGUST 2016

A document was disclosed which elaborated on the information provided in the breakdown supplied in the previous request (LBH/5462316), though apparently none related to the £4.16 million sum differing so widely from the official CIPFA figure nor information supporting the figure £0.774 million attributable to (CTR) Council Tax Reduction.

REQUEST FOR INTERNAL REVIEW – 8 AUGUST 2016

LBC was asked again for the elements that it apparently failed to consider, as follows:

I would like the following to justify the amounts which doesn't appear to have been included in the response. If I am mistaken and the information can be derived from the breakdown, please provide clarification in context of the figures.

“How has the figure £4.16 million been arrived at as the Cost of Council Tax collection. Please note that the figure stated in the CIPFA Benchmarking Club Council Tax 2014 is less than half that amount.

What further information does the council hold to support the figure £0.774 million attributable to (CTR) Council Tax Reduction (i.e. what is it? “

RESPONSE TO INTERNAL REVIEW – 6 SEPTEMBER 2016

HBC’s findings of the review were that it had provided all information that it held on the topic and satisfied that its obligations under the Freedom of Information Act had been discharged.

CONTENTION

It is unlikely that HBC would not hold the information that would answer why the £4.16 million sum as the Cost of Council Tax collection was more than twice the Revenue outturn figure quoted in the CIPFA document, as would being unable to disclose information that explained the £0.774 million attributable to (CTR) Council Tax Reduction.

Yours sincerely

The case has now been allocated to the Lead Case Officer at the Information Commissioner’s Office to investigate. (14 October 2016)

I marked this request as partially successful because although the requester doesn't seem to have received everything that was asked for I would say Sirkku Pietikäinen, Information Governance Officer, is pretty adamant that nothing further is going to be disclosed, unless the Information Commissioner says so.

The Information Commissioner's 'Decision Notice': (FS50650752)
https://ico.org.uk/media/action-weve-tak...