Grimsby Magistrates’ Court – Costs orders for Council Tax cases

Ron made this Freedom of Information request to HM Courts and Tribunals Service This request has been closed to new correspondence. Contact us if you think it should be reopened.

The request was partially successful.

Dear Her Majesty’s Courts and the Tribunals Service,

North East Lincolnshire Council raise standard costs of £70 on each application to the Magistrates' court for a Council Tax summons.

The recent benefit reforms appear to have had the effect of increasing the number of summonses by around 67%. The consequence of this is a significant hike in the income generated through liability order applications.

If the costs were a true reflection of expenditure reasonably incurred by North East Lincolnshire Council before the benefit reforms, i.e. £70 summons, then the effects of the increased revenue would mean the council is making a profit from enforcement if the costs were not reduced accordingly for each individual.

A rough calculation, taking into account both the extra costs and increased revenue generated, would give a revised figure of £44 for Summons costs. (please see below for details)

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

North East Lincolnshire Council has continued to request the same level of costs and stated that "the courts have made no adjustment to the level of costs it awards."

Grimsby Magistrates’ Court then has continued to award the costs, i.e. £70 as standard.

Q1. Please supply the procedure which Grimsby Magistrates’ Court follow to be satisfied that the amount claimed by way of costs is no more than that reasonably incurred by the authority?

Q2. Does Grimsby Magistrates’ Court follow such procedure?

Yours faithfully,

Ron

NE RSU FOI & DPA,

Freedom of Information Request
 
Dear Ron,
 
Thank you for your emails of 29th September 2013, in which you asked for
the following information from the Ministry of Justice (MoJ):
 
In relation to standard costs in relation to Council Tax summonses
 
Grimsby Magistrates' Court
 
Q1. Please supply the procedure which Grimsby Magistrates’ Court follow to
be satisfied that the amount claimed by way of costs is no more than that
reasonably incurred by the authority?
 
Q2. Does Grimsby Magistrates’ Court follow such procedure?
 
 
Leeds Magistrates' Court
 
Q1. Please supply the procedure which Leeds District Magistrates’ Court
follow to be satisfied that the amount claimed by way of costs is no more
than that reasonably incurred by the authority?

Q2. Does Leeds District Magistrates’ Court follow such a procedure?
 
Your request has been passed to me because I have responsibility for
answering requests relating to Her Majesty’s Courts & Tribunals Service
(HMCTS).  HMCTS is an executive agency of the MoJ and is responsible for
managing the magistrates' courts, the Crown Court, county courts, the High
Court, the Court of Appeal and Tribunals Service in England and Wales and
non-devolved tribunals in Scotland and Northern Ireland.
 
 
Your request is being handled under the Freedom of Information Act 2000
(FOIA).
 
Under the Act, the department is required to provide you with a response
within 20 working days. I will write to you in response to your request
for information by 28th October 2013.
 
The Freedom of Information Act includes a number of exemptions to
releasing information.  Some of these are qualified exemptions which
require us to consider whether it is in the public interest to disclose or
withhold the information.  In these circumstances we may need more time to
consider your request, and if this is the case I will write to you by the
date above to inform you of when you can expect to receive a
response.     
If you have any queries regarding this request please do not hesitate to
contact me, quoting ref: FOI/85748/13 in all future correspondence.
 
​​
Yours sincerely
 
 
K Smith
 
K Smith
NE Region KILO
NE Delivery Directors Office
Leeds
LS1 5AA, DX 724960 Leeds 56
 
NERSUFOI&[email address]
 
 
 

This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of
the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying
is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy
all
copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.

Internet e-mail is not a secure medium. Any reply to this message
could be intercepted and read by someone else. Please bear that in
mind when deciding whether to send material in response to this message
by e-mail.

This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be
monitored, recorded and retained by the Ministry of Justice. E-mail
monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be
read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not
broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.

show quoted sections

Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.

NE RSU FOI & DPA,

1 Attachment

 
Dear Ron,
 
Please find herewith reply to your Freedom of Information request into
costs claimed by Local Councils at Leeds and Grimsby Magistrates' Court.
 
Yours sincerely
 
K Smith
 
K Smith
Regional Support Unit
Leeds
LS1 5AA, DX 724960 Leeds 56
NERSUFOI&[email address]
 
 
 

This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of
the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying
is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy
all
copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.

Internet e-mail is not a secure medium. Any reply to this message
could be intercepted and read by someone else. Please bear that in
mind when deciding whether to send material in response to this message
by e-mail.

This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be
monitored, recorded and retained by the Ministry of Justice. E-mail
monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be
read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not
broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.

show quoted sections

Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.

Dear NE RSU FOI & DPA,

Thank you for your reply. I will follow your suggestion of making a FOI request to North East Lincolnshire Council, to provide information as to how their “standard costs” are arrived at.

I have some points I would like clarifying please.

Firstly:

"The procedure at both Leeds Magistrates’ Court and Grimsby Magistrates’ Court is that the local authority writes to the court with the proposed “reasonable charges” and these charges are considered by the Justices Clerk and the Judicial Leadership and Management Group. If the charges were considered unreasonable for the work carried out then the Justices Clerk would express that opinion and would also advise the Magistrates’ hearing the cases accordingly. "

The above response has been given in relation to both Leeds and Grimsby Magistrates’ Courts. This implies that the courts themselves have not stated this is their procedure but one that should be followed by all Magistrates' courts with regards to Council Tax liability order applications. Can this be clarified, i.e. if this procedure should be carried out by all courts or whether it is open to each individual court to decide its own procedure?

Secondly:

"The amount of costs awarded is at the discretion of the Justices."

Costs paid in respect of instituting the complaint (summons costs), are paid by the debtor before any hearing takes place, i.e. without a court order (without any legal obligation to pay). This means that the costs must be agreed between the account holder and the local authority who must support the claim with evidence that the costs have been reasonably incurred.

How, in the case of "summons costs" can the Justices have any discretion in the amount of costs awarded when the billing authority has, in these cases, not proceeded to make the application for an order to be granted for the liability?

In cases where the Justices do award an order for costs, if they do have discretion as to the amount of costs awarded, why do they continue to award the standard sum when with economies of scale, this would mean that the billing authority would be making huge profits out of the costs if the applications increase as they have by an average 67% since the benefit reforms?

Lastly:

"There is no bar against the local authority informing the court that they are reducing the costs claimed but it is not the place of the courts to suggest this."

My point made previously applies similarly here in as much as the court knows how many complaints are made and the number of liability orders applied for at the hearing and would be negligent if the court turned a blind eye to the fact costs would far exceed the amount reasonably incurred should the applications increase to the staggering volume they have since the benefit reforms.

Yours sincerely,

Ron

NE RSU FOI & DPA,

Dear Ron,

Thank you for your email on this occasion I will address your additional points for clarification. Any future questions relating to these points should be addressed to the Complaint, Correspondence and Litigation Team.

Complaint, Correspondence and Litigation Team
HMCTS
1st Floor (1.10)
102 Petty France
London
SW1H 9AJ

Point 1:-

In the absence of specific guidance, courts are free to decide their own procedure. In both cases cited it is felt best that the primary bodies supplying advice to the magistrates should consider the position. Some weight is given to this approach by guidance issued by Department for Communities and Local Government in their paper entitled "Guidance to local councils on good practice in the collection of Council Tax arrears" which states "Local Authorities are reminded that they are only permitted to charge reasonable costs for the court summons and liability order. In the interests of transparency, Local Authorities should be able to provide a breakdown, on request, showing how these costs are calculated. While it is likely that authorities will have discussed costs with the Clerk to Justices it should be recognised that the Court may wish to be satisfied that the amount claimed by way of costs in any individual case is no more than that reasonably incurred by the authority.

Point 2:-

The Justices Clerks do not concur that the costs "must be agreed" between the account holder and the local authority. I can think of no corollary where a debtor agrees with those who hold the debt as to the amount of costs they will be charged for the trouble they have put the debtor to. If the debtor does not pay the costs, then even though the amount of the account is paid, an order can be made solely for the costs. It is open to the court at each and every occasion to get the authority to justify the quantum of costs.

Point 3:-

This a supposition that an increased volume of cases means that pro rata costs have been reduced. We have no evidence to suggest that this is the case.

Yours sincerely

K Smith
Regional Support Unit
Leeds
NEFOI&[email address]

show quoted sections

Dear NE RSU FOI & DPA,

re;

"Point 3:-

This a supposition that an increased volume of cases means that pro rata costs have been reduced. We have no evidence to suggest that this is the case. "

If you believe that you really must get out of your office more and into the real world.

Yours sincerely,

Ron

Neil Gilliatt (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

There is mounting evidence that the council is pulling the strings of the Magistrates' court and dictating the level of costs the court awards the council for liability order applications.

The court has to be satisfied that these costs are reasonably incurred by the authority. The reality is though, that the council decides when and by how much they are increased and a letter sent to the court to inform it of the changes.

From information obtained, there is no evidence that the court takes any part in determining the level of these costs the council passes on to the council taxpayer.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/138896311/FOI-...

A Cabinet document “Minutes of Cabinet meeting 6 April 2001” http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/11... which appears unavailable on NELC's website, reveals at item reference "CAB.349" that the decision to increase costs awarded by the Magistrates' court for Council Tax and Non-Domestic Rates was not the courts but the Cabinet Committee's.

"CAB.349

REVIEW OF RECOVERY COSTS

Cabinet considered a report from the Director of Finance proposing a review of costs charged to debtors in respect of recovery of Council Tax and Non-Domestic Rates.

KB asked for clarification of paragraph 4 of the report regarding Liability Order increases. AE responded that the amount charged for a Liability Order for both Council Tax debts and Non-Domestic Rates would increase from £32.50 to £35. The Summons cost for Non-Domestic Rates would rise from £10 to £30.

Recommended to Cabinet Committee

That approval be given to increase costs in accordance with the proposal put forward in the report now submitted."

This is evidence that North East Lincolnshire council make decisions independently of the Magistrates' court and approve its own proposals to increase costs. Having no apparent need to consult with the court, the council is effectively given a free rein to increase these fees subject to its own internal approval and without providing any proof that its incurred costs have increased.

These fees are increased by the council as an easy option whenever it needs to generate additional income. On this occasion the increase was intended to raise additional income of £38,000 a year and was detailed in the “Cabinet meeting 6 April 2001” document. https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/1...

Blatant disregard for legislation in the Council Tax Administration Regulations is the recurring theme here too. The increase had been proposed and approved by the council with no supporting evidence that any increased costs had been incurred.

There was however, an added disturbing twist for the motive behind increasing the summons cost of the Non-Domestic Rates by 200% in addition to the extra for a liability order.

The rise in the business rates penalty wasn’t to mirror a 200% increase in incurred recovery costs. This hike was purely a way of encouraging prompt payment.

Processes for Council Tax and Non-Domestic Rates Liability Order applications are identical, so proving a difference in administration costs could be tricky if the court required it to do so. However, as the council are left to their own devices, it is unlikely the Magistrates' court would have asked the authority for any justification.

The council had unlawfully manipulated the summons costs of Non-Domestic Rates to a level three times that for Council Tax, even though the processes for Liability Order applications are identical.

It states at item 5 of the 6 April Cabinet document:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/1...

"5. The decision to charge more in respect of Non-Domestic Rates is one which other local authorities are taking in increasing numbers. (There are two in this region currently, Bradford and Sheffield.) The reasoning behind this is that it is believed that some businesses deliberately delay payment of Rates as the penalty for late payment is so small in comparison to the amount that might be owed. The extra cost is seen as a way of encouraging prompt payment.

The cost of issuing a summons should only take into account the administration involved and not a “deterrent” element, as there is nothing in the legislation to support an increase in costs on this basis.

It may well have been an effective measure for improving cash flow, but there can be no doubt that exploiting costs this way is entirely criminal.

Dear Her Majesty’s Courts and the Tribunals Service,

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

I am writing to request an internal review of Her Majesty’s Courts and the Tribunals Service's handling of my FOI request 'Grimsby Magistrates’ Court – Costs orders for Council Tax cases'.

re;

"Point 3:-

This a supposition that an increased volume of cases means that pro rata costs have been reduced. We have no evidence to suggest that this is the case. "

I'd like to bring to your attention this Freedom of Information request:

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

Particularly the letter 17 March, 2009 applying to Redhill Magistrates Court wishing to increase Summons costs.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/1...

Of importance is this paragraph:

"It is apparent with the increase in the actual time spent in the preparation work, the time spent in court and with customers, the current charges are insufficient to cover the true cost of this area of work and therefore a review has been undertaken to avoid this cost falling on those majority of taxpayers who pay their bills on time."

The requester subsequently asked if it could be clarified with regards the letter, what the increase in "time spent" was down to.

The response:

"At the time the letter in question was sent (March 2009) we had just experienced a 7% increase in the number of summons & liability orders issued in 2008/09 compared to 2007/08.

NOTE:
The response explaining why costs for Business rates had been on average 40% higher than Council Tax also needs considering:

"With regard to your second question, the basic differences are that there are two separate teams dealing with the issuing of Council Tax and Non Domestic Rates summonses. As there are fewer Non Domestic Rates summonses the cost per summons is greater than Council Tax."

So clearly, fewer summonses make for higher costs per account. Presumably the logic being that issuing more summonses reduces the cost per unit owing to automation and is why the individual charge must be higher for Business rates – compensating for costs having to be split between fewer people.

In the end however, you could say they were well and truly caught with their pants down by stating that the increase in time spent (therefore extra costs), was down to experiencing increased volume of summons & liability orders whilst justifying higher costs for Business Rates for the opposite reason.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/g...

Yours faithfully,

Ron

Dear NE RSU FOI & DPA,

I'm keen to know when the a response to the review will be ready.

Yours sincerely,

Ron

Data Access & Compliance Unit, HM Courts and Tribunals Service

2 Attachments

Dear Ron,

It appears that you did not receive our response issued to you on 3 December, I have attached a copy of our email and response for your ease of reference (this was issued to the what do the know email address provided when you made your request for a Internal Review on 15 November).

Regards, Donna Beaney

Data Access & Compliance Unit
Information Directorate
Post point 10.34
102 Petty France
London
SW1H 9AJ

E [HMCTS request email]

show quoted sections

Dear Data Access & Compliance Unit,

Re, the response (dated 3 December 2013)

"...The FOIA is not a vehicle for you to dispute whether the procedure followed by the Court is correct or whether the amount claimed in respect of costs should be revised..."

It may not be, but neither is it a vehicle for the public body responding to state such obvious nonsense. When it does, it's only reasonable to expect that the nonsense will be questioned.

It was stated that you have no evidence to suggest that an increased volume of cases means that pro rata costs have been reduced. I supplied evidence to suggest that an increased volume of cases means that costs are reduced (Reigate and Banstead Borough Council FOI request). As a result HMCTS has effectively spat out its dummy. I suggest if you can't deal with having statements queried, which are obviously based on misinformation, it maybe best not to make them.

Re;

"If you feel dissatisfied with the court procedures then it is open to you to make a complaint to the Complaints, Correspondence and Litigation Team as stated in the response of 30 October...."

Why do you suggest a complaint is made to the Complaints, Correspondence and Litigation Team? Is there any reason this avenue is preferred to a complaint made to the Serious Fraud Office?

Would it be easier for fraud crimes to be covered up if HMCTS investigated itself?

Yours sincerely,

Ron

Arnold Layne (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

Please note attached response from the Ministry of Justice (25 October 2013):

"The procedure at both Leeds Magistrates’ Court and Grimsby Magistrates’ Court is that the local authority writes to the court with the proposed “reasonable charges” and these charges are considered by the Justices Clerk and the Judicial Leadership and Management Group. If the charges were considered unreasonable for the work carried out then the Justices Clerk would express that opinion and would also advise the Magistrates’ hearing the cases accordingly."

However, in this response from the MoJ on 17 January 2014, it states the following:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/1...

"The MoJ has a Record Management policy and keeps records accordingly. It may be helpful to further explain that the legal power to award costs rests with the court and not the Justice’s Clerk. Hence there would be no such documents approved by Justice’s Clerk. This further supports the decision to advise you that the MoJ does not hold the information you have requested."

I think the public deserves some honesty. How do government departments continually manage to get away with this?

Dear Data Access & Compliance Unit,

Please note the response from the Ministry of Justice:

"The procedure at both Leeds Magistrates’ Court and Grimsby Magistrates’ Court is that the local authority writes to the court with the proposed “reasonable charges” and these charges are considered by the Justices Clerk and the Judicial Leadership and Management Group. If the charges were considered unreasonable for the work carried out then the Justices Clerk would express that opinion and would also advise the Magistrates’ hearing the cases accordingly."

The above seems to contradict the response below, also from the MoJ:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/1...

"The MoJ has a Record Management policy and keeps records accordingly. It may be helpful to further explain that the legal power to award costs rests with the court and not the Justice’s Clerk. Hence there would be no such documents approved by Justice’s Clerk. This further supports the decision to advise you that the MoJ does not hold the information you have requested."

It appears the MoJ has a complete disregard for the public and manufactures its responses purely to suit its own ends, i.e for the purpose of not disclosing requested information.

Yours sincerely,

Ron

Dear Data Access & Compliance Unit,

Re; response (dated 30 October 2013)

"Point 2:-

The Justices Clerks do not concur that the costs "must be agreed" between the account holder and the local authority. I can think of no corollary where a debtor agrees with those who hold the debt as to the amount of costs they will be charged for the trouble they have put the debtor to. If the debtor does not pay the costs, then even though the amount of the account is paid, an order can be made solely for the costs. It is open to the court at each and every occasion to get the authority to justify the quantum of costs."

The suggestion is that a sum is agreed because of the terminology used in regulation 34(5) of the 1992 Council Tax regulation.

Please note the use of the word "tender" which in this context means to offer or propose. Couple this with the fact that there has been no court involvement at this stage and as a consequence can be no order made as to costs which the billing authority may use to enforce payment.

“(5) If, after a summons has been issued in accordance with paragraph (2) but before the application is heard, there is paid or TENDERED to the authority an amount equal to the aggregate of—

(a) the sum specified in the summons as the sum outstanding or so much of it as remains outstanding (as the case may be); and

(b) a sum of an amount equal to the costs reasonably incurred by the authority in connection with the application up to the time of the payment or TENDER,

the authority shall accept the amount and the application shall not be proceeded with.
....”

Yours sincerely,

Ron

Dear Data Access & Compliance Unit,

An important point was made in my 13 September 2014 email which has not been addressed.

You may want to consider the following which provides evidence that the Statutory Instrument (SI 1992/613) is ultra vires, and would explain the bizarre notion that a billing authority may impose court costs on a Council Taxpayer in respect of issuing a Council Tax summons before the case is heard.

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

Yours sincerely,

Ron

Civil & Family Business Support,

Dear Ron

Thank you for your email of 15 March 2015 addressed to the Data Access and Compliance Unit.

Your email has been forwarded to me to respond outside of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) as your query appears to be about point that you previously made that hasn't been addressed.

I have read through your emails and the replies to your FOI and Internal Review requests but unfortunately cannot see any correspondence or an email of 13 September 2014.

I would be grateful if you could confirm exactly what question you are asking of HM Courts and Tribunals Service to enable me to provide a full response.

Many Thanks

Yours sincerely

E. Bedford

Civil Business Improvement | Civil and Family Directorate
HMCTS Civil Business Modernisation | 1.41 | 1st Floor | 102 Petty France | London | SW1H 9AJ | DX 152380 Westminster 8
Comments or questions about civil operations? Email us at: civil&[email address]

show quoted sections

Dear Civil & Family Business Support,

I will provide the contents of the email relating to the 13 September 2014 (see below). However, there where two previous to that dated 31 December 2013 and 21 January 2014 which seem not to have reached anyone.

Re; response (dated 30 October 2013)

"Point 2:-

The Justices Clerks do not concur that the costs "must be agreed" between the account holder and the local authority. I can think of no corollary where a debtor agrees with those who hold the debt as to the amount of costs they will be charged for the trouble they have put the debtor to. If the debtor does not pay the costs, then even though the amount of the account is paid, an order can be made solely for the costs. It is open to the court at each and every occasion to get the authority to justify the quantum of costs."

The suggestion is that a sum is agreed because of the terminology used in regulation 34(5) of the 1992 Council Tax regulation.

Please note the use of the word "tender" which in this context means to offer or propose. Couple this with the fact that there has been no court involvement at this stage and as a consequence can be no order made as to costs which the billing authority may use to enforce payment.

“(5) If, after a summons has been issued in accordance with paragraph (2) but before the application is heard, there is paid or TENDERED to the authority an amount equal to the aggregate of—

(a) the sum specified in the summons as the sum outstanding or so much of it as remains outstanding (as the case may be); and

(b) a sum of an amount equal to the costs reasonably incurred by the authority in connection with the application up to the time of the payment or TENDER,

the authority shall accept the amount and the application shall not be proceeded with.
....”

Yours sincerely,

Ron

Civil & Family Business Support,

Thank you for your email to the Civil & Family Business Support Mailbox.
This mailbox is checked regularly during business hours 10:00am to 4:00pm
Monday to Friday.

 

We will reply to your e-mail enquiry within 2 days (unless you have marked
it urgent - in these cases we will try to get back to you quicker)
answering your query substantively or informing you of the action we are
taking. We may have to take further advice from our policy colleagues or
lawyers for a definitive answer but we will let you know in our initial
response.

 

Please note that sometimes the answer to your question can be found in
guidance that is already available. For further information, please visit
the relevant pages under the header 'My Work'  on the HMCTS intranet site:
[1]http://libra.lcd.gsi.gov.uk/hmcts/index.....

This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of
the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying
is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy
all
copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.

Internet e-mail is not a secure medium. Any reply to this message
could be intercepted and read by someone else. Please bear that in
mind when deciding whether to send material in response to this message
by e-mail.

This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be
monitored, recorded and retained by the Ministry of Justice. E-mail
monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be
read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not
broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.

show quoted sections

Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.

References

Visible links
1. http://libra.lcd.gsi.gov.uk/hmcts/index....

Civil & Family Business Support,

Dear Ron

Thank you for your email of 25 March 2015.

I consider that the response to your Freedom of Information request dated 25 October 2013 and 30 October 2013 and subsequent reply to your request for an Internal Review dated 3 December 2013 addresses the points that you have raised. I therefore have nothing further to add.

As suggested in the Internal Review reply from N.Hawdon, you have the right to appeal to the Information Commissioners Office (ICO) if you are still unhappy with the response.

Yours sincerely

E. Bedford

Civil Business Improvement | Civil and Family Directorate
HMCTS Civil Business Modernisation | 1.41 | 1st Floor | 102 Petty France | London | SW1H 9AJ | DX 152380 Westminster 8
Comments or questions about civil operations? Email us at: civil&[email address]

show quoted sections

Dear Civil & Family Business Support,

Both the Ministry of Justice and Her Majesty’s Courts and the Tribunals Service have shown themselves to be wholly incompetent.

I'm at a loss to know how it has been possible for these government departments to have got away with defrauding the taxpayer of the money that funds them for so long.

Yours sincerely,

Ron

Civil & Family Business Support,

Thank you for your email to the Civil & Family Business Support Mailbox.
This mailbox is checked regularly during business hours 10:00am to 4:00pm
Monday to Friday.

 

We will reply to your e-mail enquiry within 2 days (unless you have marked
it urgent - in these cases we will try to get back to you quicker)
answering your query substantively or informing you of the action we are
taking. We may have to take further advice from our policy colleagues or
lawyers for a definitive answer but we will let you know in our initial
response.

 

Please note that sometimes the answer to your question can be found in
guidance that is already available. For further information, please visit
the relevant pages under the header 'My Work'  on the HMCTS intranet site:
[1]http://libra.lcd.gsi.gov.uk/hmcts/index.....

This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of
the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying
is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy
all
copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.

Internet e-mail is not a secure medium. Any reply to this message
could be intercepted and read by someone else. Please bear that in
mind when deciding whether to send material in response to this message
by e-mail.

This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be
monitored, recorded and retained by the Ministry of Justice. E-mail
monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be
read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not
broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.

show quoted sections

Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.

References

Visible links
1. http://libra.lcd.gsi.gov.uk/hmcts/index....