We don't know whether the most recent response to this request contains information or not – if you are Gwyn Worth please sign in and let everyone know.

Ensuring customers are not subject to unnecessary recovery action, additional costs or hardship

We're waiting for Gwyn Worth to read recent responses and update the status.

Dear Carlisle 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 Carlisle City Council have its computer software set to deal with non specific payments. Current or oldest year's liability?

Yours faithfully,

Gwyn Worth

Frances Braithwaite, Carlisle City Council

1 Attachment

Dear Ms Worth

Please find attached acknowledgment to your request under the Freedom of
Information Act

Regards

 

Frances Braithwaite

Corporate Information/SHE Support Officer

Governance and Regulatory Services

Carlisle City Council

Civic Centre

Carlisle
CA3 8QG

Telephone 01228 817060

e-mail [1][email address]

 

 

This e-mail and its attachments may include confidential information or
protectively marked material up to RESTRICTED, should be handled
accordingly and is solely for use by the intended recipient(s). If you
have received this e-mail and its attachments in error please notify the
sender immediately delete them and do not disclose, copy, distribute or
retain any part of them. The views and opinions expressed by the author
are not necessarily those of Carlisle City Council. Carlisle City Council
has scanned this e-mail and its attachments to ensure that they are virus
free. The Council can take no responsibility if a virus is actually
present and you are advised to make the appropriate checks to confirm that
they are virus free.

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]

Information, Carlisle City Council

1 Attachment

Dear Ms Worth

Please find attached response to your request under the Freedom of
Information Act

 

Regards

 

Frances Braithwaite

Corporate Information/SHE Support Officer

Governance and Regulatory Services

Carlisle City Council

Civic Centre

Carlisle
CA3 8QG

Telephone 01228 817060

e-mail [1][email address]

 

 

This e-mail and its attachments may include confidential information or
protectively marked material up to RESTRICTED, should be handled
accordingly and is solely for use by the intended recipient(s). If you
have received this e-mail and its attachments in error please notify the
sender immediately delete them and do not disclose, copy, distribute or
retain any part of them. The views and opinions expressed by the author
are not necessarily those of Carlisle City Council. Carlisle City Council
has scanned this e-mail and its attachments to ensure that they are virus
free. The Council can take no responsibility if a virus is actually
present and you are advised to make the appropriate checks to confirm that
they are virus free.

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]

Dear Information,

Thank you for stating that unmatched payments are allocated to the oldest financial year debt.

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

Mail Delivery System,

2 Attachments

This message was created automatically by mail delivery software.

A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its
recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address(es) failed:

[email address]
host d91331a.ess.barracudanetworks.com [64.235.150.252]
SMTP error from remote mail server after end of data:
550 permanent failure for one or more recipients ([Carlisle City Council request email]:blocked)

Dear Carlisle City Council,

Thank you for stating that unmatched payments are allocated to the oldest financial year debt.

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 faithfully,

Gwyn Worth

Dear Carlisle City Council,

Will you please acknowledge receipt of my 30 November 2017 request/clarification.

Yours faithfully,

Gwyn Worth

Information, Carlisle City Council

Dear Ms Worth

Please accept our apologies for the delay in response & any inconvenience this may have caused. I have now received the information from the relevant department.

Principle of the original reply applies in the vast majority of cases. Payments are allocated to the oldest debt first, unless they match a current year instalment. If a credit balance results by allocating to the oldest debt, consideration is given on an exception basis to the overall account balances to allocate amounts appropriately for each year owed to avoid or reduce recovery costs to the customer.

Regards

Frances Braithwaite
Corporate Information/SHE Support Officer
Governance and Regulatory Services
Carlisle City Council
Civic Centre
Carlisle
CA3 8QG

Telephone 01228 817060
e-mail [email address]

show quoted sections

Dear Information,

Thank you for clarifying your response. I consider Carlisle City Council has provided the information I requested, however, the purpose of this exercise was to ascertain whether or not the principles surrounding the appropriation of payments were being adhered to.

R v Miskin Lower Justices (1953)

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.

If no instruction is given at the time of payment, then the council has a duty to allocate payment to the account which it is most beneficial to the debtor to reduce. That would be in the majority of cases the current liability if the consequences of allocating payment to the arrears meant that the customer was subject to unnecessary recovery action, additional costs etc.

I understand by the council being unable to confirm that there are measures in place to ensure that unspecified payments are allocated to the account which it is least burdensome for the debtor (under all circumstances) that the laws surrounding the appropriation of payments are not being complied with. If the laws of appropriation were being complied with, an unmatched payment allocated to the oldest debt (having the consequences of putting the current year's liability also in arrears) would be reallocated to the current year's liability on account of the circumstances implying that this was the debtor's intention (least burdensome for the debtor).

If it appears I have misunderstood anything from what I have stated above I would appreciate if you would correct me.

Yours sincerely,

Gwyn Worth

Mail Delivery System,

This message was created automatically by mail delivery software.

A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its
recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address(es) failed:

[email address]
SMTP error from remote mail server after end of data:
host d91331a.ess.barracudanetworks.com [64.235.153.2]:
550 permanent failure for one or more recipients ([Carlisle City Council request email]:blocked)

show quoted sections

Dear Frances Braithwaite,

Thank you for clarifying your response. I consider Carlisle City Council has provided the information I requested, however, the purpose of this exercise was to ascertain whether or not the principles surrounding the appropriation of payments were being adhered to.

R v Miskin Lower Justices (1953)

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.

If no instruction is given at the time of payment, then the council has a duty to allocate payment to the account which it is most beneficial to the debtor to reduce. That would be in the majority of cases the current liability if the consequences of allocating payment to the arrears meant that the customer was subject to unnecessary recovery action, additional costs etc.

I understand by the council being unable to confirm that there are measures in place to ensure that unspecified payments are allocated to the account which it is least burdensome for the debtor (under all circumstances) that the laws surrounding the appropriation of payments are not being complied with. If the laws of appropriation were being complied with, an unmatched payment allocated to the oldest debt (having the consequences of putting the current year's liability also in arrears) would be reallocated to the current year's liability on account of the circumstances implying that this was the debtor's intention (least burdensome for the debtor).

If it appears I have misunderstood anything from what I have stated above I would appreciate if you would correct me.

Yours sincerely,

Gwyn Worth

Mail Delivery System,

2 Attachments

  • Attachment

    attachment.delivery status

    0K Download

  • Attachment

    Internal review of Freedom of Information request Ensuring customers are not subject to unnecessary recovery action additional costs or hardship.txt

    3K Download View as HTML

This message was created automatically by mail delivery software.

A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its
recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address(es) failed:

[email address]
host d91331a.ess.barracudanetworks.com [64.235.154.109]
SMTP error from remote mail server after end of data:
550 permanent failure for one or more recipients ([email address]:blocked)

Dear Carlisle City Council,

Thank you for clarifying your response. I consider Carlisle City Council has provided the information I requested, however, the purpose of this exercise was to ascertain whether or not the principles surrounding the appropriation of payments were being adhered to.

R v Miskin Lower Justices (1953)

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.

If no instruction is given at the time of payment, then the council has a duty to allocate payment to the account which it is most beneficial to the debtor to reduce. That would be in the majority of cases the current liability if the consequences of allocating payment to the arrears meant that the customer was subject to unnecessary recovery action, additional costs etc.

I understand by the council being unable to confirm that there are measures in place to ensure that unspecified payments are allocated to the account which it is least burdensome for the debtor (under all circumstances) that the laws surrounding the appropriation of payments are not being complied with. If the laws of appropriation were being complied with, an unmatched payment allocated to the oldest debt (having the consequences of putting the current year's liability also in arrears) would be reallocated to the current year's liability on account of the circumstances implying that this was the debtor's intention (least burdensome for the debtor).

If it appears I have misunderstood anything from what I have stated above I would appreciate if you would correct me.

Yours faithfully,

Gwyn Worth

Mail Delivery System,

This message was created automatically by mail delivery software.

A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its
recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address(es) failed:

[Carlisle City Council request email]
SMTP error from remote mail server after end of data:
host d91331a.ess.barracudanetworks.com [64.235.153.2]:
550 permanent failure for one or more recipients ([Carlisle City Council request email]:blocked)

show quoted sections

Dear Frances Braithwaite,

Thank you for clarifying your response. I consider Carlisle City Council has provided the information I requested, however, the purpose of this exercise was to ascertain whether or not the principles surrounding the appropriation of payments were being adhered to.

R v Miskin Lower Justices (1953)

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.

If no instruction is given at the time of payment, then the council has a duty to allocate payment to the account which it is most beneficial to the debtor to reduce. That would be in the majority of cases the current liability if the consequences of allocating payment to the arrears meant that the customer was subject to unnecessary recovery action, additional costs etc.

I understand by the council being unable to confirm that there are measures in place to ensure that unspecified payments are allocated to the account which it is least burdensome for the debtor (under all circumstances) that the laws surrounding the appropriation of payments are not being complied with. If the laws of appropriation were being complied with, an unmatched payment allocated to the oldest debt (having the consequences of putting the current year's liability also in arrears) would be reallocated to the current year's liability on account of the circumstances implying that this was the debtor's intention (least burdensome for the debtor).

If it appears I have misunderstood anything from what I have stated above I would appreciate if you would correct me

Yours sincerely,

Gwyn Worth

Mail Delivery System,

This message was created automatically by mail delivery software.

A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its
recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address(es) failed:

[email address]
SMTP error from remote mail server after end of data:
host d91331a.ess.barracudanetworks.com [64.235.153.2]:
550 permanent failure for one or more recipients ([email address]:blocked)

show quoted sections

Dear Frances Braithwaite,

Thank you for clarifying your response. I consider Carlisle City Council has provided the information I requested, however, the purpose of this exercise was to ascertain whether or not the principles surrounding the appropriation of payments were being adhered to.

R vs Miskin Lower Justices (1953)

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.

If no instruction is given at the time of payment, then the council has a duty to allocate payment to the account which it is most beneficial to the debtor to reduce. That would be in the majority of cases the current liability if the consequences of allocating payment to the arrears meant that the customer was subject to unnecessary recovery action, additional costs etc.

I understand by the council being unable to confirm that there are measures in place to ensure that unspecified payments are allocated to the account which it is least burdensome for the debtor (under all circumstances) that the laws surrounding the appropriation of payments are not being complied with. If the laws of appropriation were being complied with, an unmatched payment allocated to the oldest debt (having the consequences of putting the current year's liability also in arrears) would be reallocated to the current year's liability on account of the circumstances implying that this was the debtor's intention (least burdensome for the debtor).

If it appears I have misunderstood anything from what I have stated above I would appreciate if you would correct me.

Yours sincerely,

Gwyn Worth

Mail Delivery System,

This message was created automatically by mail delivery software.

A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its
recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address(es) failed:

[email address]
SMTP error from remote mail server after end of data:
host d91331a.ess.barracudanetworks.com [209.222.83.70]:
550 permanent failure for one or more recipients ([email address]:blocked)

show quoted sections

Dear Ms Braithwaite,

Thank you for clarifying your response. I consider Carlisle City Council has provided the information I requested, however, the purpose of this exercise was to ascertain whether or not the principles surrounding the appropriation of payments were being adhered to.

R vs Miskin Lower Justices (1953)

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.

If no instruction is given at the time of payment, then the council has a duty to allocate payment to the account which it is most beneficial to the debtor to reduce. That would be in the majority of cases the current liability if the consequences of allocating payment to the arrears meant that the customer was subject to unnecessary recovery action, additional costs etc.

I understand by the council being unable to confirm that there are measures in place to ensure that unspecified payments are allocated to the account which it is least burdensome for the debtor (under all circumstances) that the laws surrounding the appropriation of payments are not being complied with. If the laws of appropriation were being complied with, an unmatched payment allocated to the oldest debt (having the consequences of putting the current year's liability also in arrears) would be reallocated to the current year's liability on account of the circumstances implying that this was the debtor's intention (least burdensome for the debtor).

If it appears I have misunderstood anything from what I have stated above I would appreciate if you would correct me.

Yours sincerely,

Gwyn Worth

Mail Delivery System,

This message was created automatically by mail delivery software.

A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its
recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address(es) failed:

[email address]
SMTP error from remote mail server after end of data:
host d91331a.ess.barracudanetworks.com [64.235.150.252]:
550 permanent failure for one or more recipients ([email address]:blocked)

show quoted sections

Dear Carlisle City Council / Frances Braithwaite,

Thank you for clarifying your response. I consider Carlisle City Council has provided the information I requested, however, the purpose of this exercise was to ascertain whether or not the principles surrounding the appropriation of payments were being adhered to.

R vs Miskin Lower Justices (1953)

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.

If no instruction is given at the time of payment, then the council has a duty to allocate payment to the account which it is most beneficial to the debtor to reduce. That would be in the majority of cases the current liability if the consequences of allocating payment to the arrears meant that the customer was subject to unnecessary recovery action, additional costs etc.

I understand by the council being unable to confirm that there are measures in place to ensure that unspecified payments are allocated to the account which it is least burdensome for the debtor (under all circumstances) that the laws surrounding the appropriation of payments are not being complied with. If the laws of appropriation were being complied with, an unmatched payment allocated to the oldest debt (having the consequences of putting the current year's liability also in arrears) would be reallocated to the current year's liability on account of the circumstances implying that this was the debtor's intention (least burdensome for the debtor).

If it appears I have misunderstood anything from what I have stated above I would appreciate if you would correct me.

Yours faithfully,

Gwyn Worth

We don't know whether the most recent response to this request contains information or not – if you are Gwyn Worth please sign in and let everyone know.

Looking for an EU Authority?

You can request documents directly from EU Institutions at our sister site AskTheEU.org . Find out more .

AskTheEU.org