Ensuring customers are not subject to unnecessary recovery action, additional costs or hardship
Dear Nottingham City Council,
A council taxpayer who owes more than just the current year's liability runs the risk of incurring additional recovery costs through a further application for a liability order if payments which are intended for the current year's liability are allocated by the council's computer to the previous year's liability. This would most likely happen where a non specific payment is made and the computer software is set to automatically allocate these payments to the oldest year's debt.
Councils computer systems have the necessary flexibility to be set to allow non specific payments to be allocated to the arrears or the current year's liability.
I understand that the majority of billing authorities have their computer software set to ensure that their customers are not subject to unnecessary recovery action, additional costs or hardship, i.e. so non specific payments are allocated to the current year's liability.
How does Nottingham City Council have its computer software set to deal with non specific payments. Current or oldest year's liability?
Yours faithfully,
Gwyn Worth
THIS IS AN AUTOMATED ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF YOUR ENQUIRY
Dear Gwyn Worth,
Nottingham City Council acknowledge the receipt of your email.
Your enquiry has been given the reference number IG/10026. A case officer
will be assigned to your request and you will receive a response in due
course.
Please note that;
For requests that fall under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 or the
Environmental Information Regulations 2004 you should expect a response
within 20 working days commencing the next working day following receipt
of your enquiry.
For requests that fall under the Data Protection Act 1998 (requests for
personal information) you will receive a response within 40 calendar days
of the Authority receiving everything we reasonably require from you.
Where requests for personal information are received and involve large
amounts of information or complex materials, an officer will contact you
to further discuss your case.
Further information about the handling of your request can be found on our
website at
http://www.nottinghamcity.gov.uk/article....
Regards,
Information Management Services
FOI and EIR Requests:
Email: [email address]
Tel: 0115 8764376
Data Protection Subject Access Requests:
Email: [email address]
Tel: 0115 8763855
Nottingham City Council
Loxley House
Station Street
Nottingham
NG3 2NG This email is security checked and subject to the disclaimer on
web-page: http://www.nottinghamcity.gov.uk/privacy... This message
has been scanned by Exchange Online Protection.
Dear Requester,
Please find attached the response to your request for information
submitted to Nottingham City Council.
Regards
Information Rights & Insight Team | Information Management Services
Nottingham City Council | Loxley House | Station Street | Nottingham | NG2
3NG
Direct Line: 0115 876 4376
Website: [1]www.nottinghamcity.gov.uk | Nottingham Insight:
[2]www.nottinghaminsight.org.uk |Open Data:
[3]www.opendatanottingham.org.uk
Please consider the environment before printing this email
This email is security checked and subject to the disclaimer on web-page:
http://www.nottinghamcity.gov.uk/privacy... This message has been
scanned by Exchange Online Protection.
References
Visible links
1. http://www.nottinghamcity.gov.uk/
2. http://www.nottinghaminsight.org.uk/
3. http://www.opendatanottingham.org.uk/
Dear Information Rights,
Thank you for stating that payments which the council's system is unable to match are posted to the oldest debt outstanding.
Would you please confirm whether or not any measures are in place to check that allocating an unmatched payment to the oldest debt in these circumstances would have the consequences of putting the current year's liability also in arrears, and if so, in accordance with R. v Miskin Lower Justices [1953] 1 Q.B. 533, whether the payment would be moved in respect of the current year's account to avoid unnecessary recovery action, additional costs etc.?
Yours sincerely,
Gwyn Worth
Dear Requester,
As you are requesting new information the council has logged this as a new request and you should expect a response within 20 working days.
Regards
Information Rights & Insight Team | Information Management Services
Nottingham City Council | Loxley House | Station Street | Nottingham | NG2 3NG
Direct Line: 0115 876 4376
Website: www.nottinghamcity.gov.uk | Nottingham Insight: www.nottinghaminsight.org.uk |Open Data: www.opendatanottingham.org.uk
Please consider the environment before printing this email
THIS IS AN AUTOMATED ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF YOUR ENQUIRY
Dear Gwyn Worth,
Nottingham City Council acknowledge the receipt of your email.
Your enquiry has been given the reference number IG/10041. A case officer
will be assigned to your request and you will receive a response in due
course.
Please note that;
For requests that fall under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 or the
Environmental Information Regulations 2004 you should expect a response
within 20 working days commencing the next working day following receipt
of your enquiry.
For requests that fall under the Data Protection Act 1998 (requests for
personal information) you will receive a response within 40 calendar days
of the Authority receiving everything we reasonably require from you.
Where requests for personal information are received and involve large
amounts of information or complex materials, an officer will contact you
to further discuss your case.
Further information about the handling of your request can be found on our
website at
http://www.nottinghamcity.gov.uk/article....
Regards,
Information Management Services
FOI and EIR Requests:
Email: [email address]
Tel: 0115 8764376
Data Protection Subject Access Requests:
Email: [email address]
Tel: 0115 8763855
Nottingham City Council
Loxley House
Station Street
Nottingham
NG3 2NG This email is security checked and subject to the disclaimer on
web-page: http://www.nottinghamcity.gov.uk/privacy... This message
has been scanned by Exchange Online Protection.
Dear Requester,
Please find attached the response to your request for information
submitted to Nottingham City Council.
Regards
Information Rights & Insight Team | Information Management Services
Nottingham City Council | Loxley House | Station Street | Nottingham | NG2
3NG
Direct Line: 0115 876 4376
Website: [1]www.nottinghamcity.gov.uk | Nottingham Insight:
[2]www.nottinghaminsight.org.uk |Open Data:
[3]www.opendatanottingham.org.uk
Please consider the environment before printing this email
This email is security checked and subject to the disclaimer on web-page:
http://www.nottinghamcity.gov.uk/privacy... This message has been
scanned by Exchange Online Protection.
References
Visible links
1. http://www.nottinghamcity.gov.uk/
2. http://www.nottinghaminsight.org.uk/
3. http://www.opendatanottingham.org.uk/
Dear Information Rights,
Thank you for your response which I believe included quoted parts of an article published in an Institute of Revenues Rating and Valuation (IRRV) magazine (interpreting various case law on appropriation of payments). The article was written by consultant and trainer Paul Russell who made the disclaimer that "the views given in this column are personal views and should not be construed as a legal opinion"
Alternatively, the general principles, which take into consideration the relevant case law (relevant to the debtor’s rights) are set out in Chitty on Contracts (31st Edition) Volume 1 at Para 21-061 (see below, note R v Miskin Lower Justices):
'21-061
Debtor’s right to appropriate. It is essential that an appropriation by the debtor should take the form of a communication, express or implied, to the creditor of the debtor’s intention to appropriate the payment to a specified debt or debts so that the creditor may know that his rights of appropriation as creditor cannot arise [353]. It is not essential that the debtor should expressly specify at the time of the payment which debt or account he intended the payment to be applied to. His intention may be collected from other circumstances showing that he intended at the time of the payment to appropriate it to a specific debt or account [354]. Thus, where at the date of payment some of his debts are statute barred and others are not, it will be inferred (in the absence of evidence to the contrary) that the debtor appropriated the payment to the debts that were not so barred. [355]
353 Leeson v Leeson [1936] 2 K.B. 156, 161; Stepney Corp v Osofsky [1937] 3 All E.R. 289; Thomas v Ken Thomas Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 1504, [2007] Bus. LR 429 at [19].
354 Newmarch v Clay (1811) 14 East 239, 244; Shaw v Picton (1825) 4 B. & C. 715; Young v English (1843) 7 Beav. 10; Nash v Hodgson (1855) 6 De G.M. & G. 474; R. v Miskin Lower Justices [1953] 1 Q.B. 533.
355 Nash v Hodgson (1855) 6 De G.M. & G. 474; cf. a balance owing on a current account: Re Footman Bower & Co Ltd [1961] Ch. 443 (and see below, para. 21-067). '
It was held in R v Miskin Lower Justices, that where an amount obviously relates to a specific liability, it would be an unwarranted assumption to allocate the payment elsewhere. Hence, if the laws of appropriation were to be complied with, an unmatched payment allocated to the oldest debt (having the consequences of putting the current year's liability also in arrears) would require reallocating to the current year's liability. The circumstances would imply that this was the debtor's intention as it would be least burdensome for him and would be an unwarranted assumption to do differently.
Yours sincerely,
Gwyn Worth
We work to defend the right to FOI for everyone
Help us protect your right to hold public authorities to account. Donate and support our work.
Donate Now
Gwyn Worth left an annotation ()
Response:
'There is no council tax regulation which relates to the allocation of cash. It is accepted practice that where there is no indication from the debtor, either expressed or implied, where a particular payment may be allocated then the creditor may apply the payment as they see fit.
In the case of R. v Miskin Lower Justices [1953] it was held that where an amount so obviously relates to a specific liability, it would be an unwarranted assumption to allocate the payment elsewhere. Thus, if the amount of the payment identifies the debt, then it must be allocated to that debt. Where the debtor states where the payment should be allocated to a specific debt, then the creditor must abide by that statement. Where the debtor does not make any reference as to where the payment should be allocated and the amount gives no clue, then it is up to the creditor to make the choice.
The council’s Council Tax software applies 27 complex rules when allocating payments by matching the amount paid against various criteria. Only if the payment cannot be allocated using one of these rules is it allocated to the oldest debt.
If when making a payment a taxpayer states to which year or debt it should be paid against then we would allocate it accordingly. '