No checks made before issuing court summons

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

Lambeth Borough Council did not have the information requested.

Dear Lambeth Borough Council,

I have it on good authority that Council Tax summonses are not checked individually before they are issued.

Parameters are agreed in advance by the relevant manager and set in its Council Tax processing system relating to the number of days behind and the monetary value etc., and summonses are issued on this basis.

The process is therefore completely automated yet a cost of £122 is recharged to the defendant. I'm aware it is unlawful to recharge an amount to the defendant which exceeds the council's incurred expenditure.

I would therefore like disclosing exactly what expenditure is incurred in addition to the obvious costs of stationary and postage for the authority to arrive at a £122 sum.

Yours faithfully,

Enid Brighton

Richard Carter, Lambeth Borough Council

 
Information request
Our reference: IR136238

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

 
Thank you for your request for information that was received on 26
November 2015.
 
 
We are dealing with your request and aim to respond within 20 working
days, by 24 December 2015.
 
 
We will advise you if we cannot provide you with the information requested
we will explain the reason why in our response.
 
 
Thank you for your interest in Lambeth Council.
 
 
Yours sincerely
 
 
Freedom of Information Team
London Borough of Lambeth
E-mail: [Lambeth Borough Council request email]
website: www.lambeth.gov.uk
 
Lambeth - the co-operative council
 
Disclaimers apply for full details see
http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/EmailDisclaime...

Sara Thomas, Lambeth Borough Council

2 Attachments

Information request
Our reference: IR136238

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear ‎Ms. Brighton‏
Thank you for your request for information received on 26 November 2015 .
This request is being handled under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
Please find our response attached.
If you are dissatisfied with the way in which your Freedom of Information
request has been dealt with you can request an internal review. Tell us
why you are unhappy with our response within 40 working days, and it will
be looked at afresh. We will aim to provide you with our review response
within 20 working days.
By email: [Lambeth Borough Council request email] (Please quote the reference number above) or
by writing to: 
Freedom of Information
Olive Morris House
18 Brixton Hill
London
SW2 1RD 
If you remain dissatisfied with the outcome of the review you have a
further right to appeal to the Information Commissioner, who regulates the
implementation of the Freedom of Information Act. The Commissioner can be
contacted at the following address:
Information Commissioner’s Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Enquiry line: 0303 123 1113
Thank you for your interest in Lambeth Council.
Yours sincerely
 
 
Sara Thomas
Complaints & Information Officer
 
FOI team
London Borough of Lambeth
 
Tel. 020 7926 9392 / 020 7926 0547
E-mail [email address]
Website: [1]www.lambeth.gov.uk
 
Lambeth - a Co-operative Council
 
"This email (and/or attachment) may contain information that is legally
privileged.  If you have received this in error please notify the sender
immediately"
 
 
Copyright
Some of the information that we provide in response to Freedom of
Information Act 2000 requests will be subject to copyright protection. In
most cases the copyright will be owned by Lambeth Council.
Applications for permission to reproduce extracts in published works,
should be made to the Freedom of Information Co-ordinator, Olive Morris
House, 18 Brixton Hill, London, SW2 1RD.  email: [2][Lambeth Borough Council request email]
You are free to use any information supplied for your own non-commercial
research or private study purposes. The information may also be used for
any other purpose allowed by a limitation or exception in copyright law,
such as news reporting.
However, any other type of re-use, for example by publishing the
information in analogue or digital form, including on the internet, will
require the permission of the copyright owner.
 
The copyright in other information may be owned by another person or
organisation, is indicated on the information itself.  For information
where the copyright is owned by another person or organisation you must
apply to the copyright owner to obtain their permission.
Direct Marketing
If an organisation intends to use personal names and addresses from what
has been supplied to you for direct marketing, the organisation needs to
be registered with the Information Commissioner to process Personal Data
for this purpose. Organisations must also check that the individual (whom
you wish to contact for direct marketing purposes) is not registered with
one of the Preference Services to prevent Direct Marketing, if they are
you must adhere to this Preference. Follow this Link
[https://ico.org.uk/]  for more information.
Disclaimers apply for full details see
http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/EmailDisclaime...

References

Visible links
1. http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/
2. mailto:[Lambeth Borough Council request email]

Dear Sara Thomas,

It is clear from the calculation that the total expenditure claimed to be attributable to court proceedings is shared among only 39% of summonsed taxpayers. The defendants left actually paying the costs are paying an inflated sum to subsidise those who for whatever reason do not pay. The law does not provide that the billing authority may increase the costs in respect of one debtor from whom collection is easy in order to pay another's costs whose payment is not so easily obtained.

It is also clear from the proportion of its Council Tax budget, which is based on the ratio of recovery notices to the total notices, is inflated. Even if it was legitimate, the ratio based on Summonses and Liability order notices would make up only 9%, not 38% of the total notices.

Just quickly recalculating the costs taking into consideration these two points, the following would be returned as the standard costs:

Ratio of Recovery Action is 9%, therefore the cost of recovery is £323,613.

Magistrates' Court fee is £3, so with the estimated number of summonses issued being 11,457 (where costs applied/paid) gives a total estimated cost of Magistrates' Court fees of £34,371.

Total cost of recovery, including Magistrates' Court fees is therefore £357,984.

The summons and liability orders based on the council's logic are weighted so that the summons represents 5/9ths of total cost of recovery whereas the liability order around 4/9ths

£357,984 x 5/9 = £198,880
£357,984 x 4/9 = £159,104

For the individual summons and liability order costs based on the council's method we now have:

£198,880 / 11,457 summons = £17.36
£159,104 / 10,055 liability orders = £15.82

Yours sincerely,

Enid Brighton

Dear Sara Thomas,

Please accept my apologies for the slip I made in my previous calculation. The figures used in the final part should have been the actual numbers of estimated summons/liability orders as opposed the "collected against" figures.

For the individual summons and liability order costs based on the council's method we now have:

£198,880 / 29,378 summons

= £6.77

£159,104 / 25,783 liability orders

= £6.17

Yours sincerely,

Enid Brighton

Adamna left an annotation ()

I make the 5% proportion of summons costs to be £179,785.00, divided by the number of summonses issued (29,378) a sum of £6.12. But let's not split hairs over pennies. The bigger problem is how they can possibly arrive at charging £122.

Enid Brighton (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

Not much difference in the final figure. From memory, I reduced Lambeth's sum which it attributed to recovery by discounting the reminder notices which were wrongly considered a factor. On that basis I reckoned that the split of the total action was around 55% summonsed and 45% liability order and went from there. I might have remembered wrongly though.

Adamna left an annotation ()

Interesting that they added the rather vague "We are aware of, and are considering the recent High Court
ruling. " to their response, when you had not mentioned it at all. I assume they meant this one http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admi...
They have had since last May to make their considerations, feet would seem to be dragging, whilst still raking in the profits.

Dear Sara Thomas,

Quote:

"Response
Please find attached documentation around the cost calculations as requested. Please be advised that the information has been approved by the court. We are aware of, and are considering the recent High Court ruling."

Do you have any revised information after considering the recent High Court ruling? For example, has the level of costs which are recharged to defendants been drastically reduced, now it is confirmed that it is impermissible to cover the entire cost of recovery with the costs, and under no circumstances are activities, which account for the majority of resources, permissible post-liability order?

Yours sincerely,

Enid Brighton

FOI team, Lambeth Borough Council

Information request
Our reference: IR136238

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Ms. Brighton
 
Freedom of Information Act 2000
 
Thank you for your email reply on this case. As below for ease.
Dear Sara Thomas,
Quote:
"Response
Please find attached documentation around the cost calculations as
requested. Please be advised that the information has been approved
by the court. We are aware of, and are considering the recent High
Court ruling."
Do you have any revised information after considering the recent
High Court ruling? For example, has the level of costs which are
recharged to defendants been drastically reduced, now it is
confirmed that it is impermissible to cover the entire cost of
recovery with the costs, and under no circumstances are activities,
which account for the majority of resources, permissible
post-liability order?
Yours sincerely,
Enid Brighton
This needs to be treated as a fresh FOI request and I will therefore
arrange for it to be logged as such.
 
Yours sincerely
 
 
Sara Thomas
Complaints & Information Officer
 
FOI team
London Borough of Lambeth
 
Tel. 020 7926 9392 / 020 7926 0547
E-mail [email address]
Website: [1]www.lambeth.gov.uk
 
Lambeth - a Co-operative Council
 
"This email (and/or attachment) may contain information that is legally
privileged.  If you have received this in error please notify the sender
immediately"
Disclaimers apply for full details see
http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/EmailDisclaime...

References

Visible links
1. http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/

Richard Carter, Lambeth Borough Council

 
Information request
Our reference: IR148117

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

 
Thank you for your request for information that was received on 8 March
2016.
 
 
We are dealing with your request and aim to respond within 20 working
days, by 6 April 2016.
 
 
We will advise you if we cannot provide you with the information requested
we will explain the reason why in our response.
 
 
Thank you for your interest in Lambeth Council.
 
 
Yours sincerely
 
Brooke Glover 
Freedom of Information Team
London Borough of Lambeth
E-mail: [Lambeth Borough Council request email]
website: www.lambeth.gov.uk
 
Lambeth - the co-operative council
 
Disclaimers apply for full details see
http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/EmailDisclaime...

ivanataylor left an annotation ()

Council Tax ex councillor questions Town and District Council

I would like to know if a complaint is actually laid before the Magistrates prior to a summons being issued by the Magistrates for non payment of Council tax?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qw4I2gEt...

Richard Carter, Lambeth Borough Council

1 Attachment

Information request
Our reference: IR148117

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear ‎Ms. Brighton‏
 Please find attached response.
Thank you for your interest in Lambeth Council.
Yours sincerely
 
 
Richard Carter
Freedom of Information Co-ordinator
 
FOI team
London Borough of Lambeth
 
Tel. 07710 026 240
E-mail [email address]
Website: [1]www.lambeth.gov.uk
 
Lambeth - a Co-operative Council
 
"This email (and/or attachment) may contain information that is legally
privileged.  If you have received this in error please notify the sender
immediately"
 
 
Disclaimers apply for full details see
http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/EmailDisclaime...

References

Visible links
1. http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/

Dear Richard Carter,

"Lambeth’s court costs were agreed by Camberwell Green Magistrates Court in 2009, at every court we submit our calculation and the magistrates court approve them for each hearing, I can confirm that the current level of court costs are being reviewed by the council for the next financial year. "

Does this mean that Lambeth Council is not taking responsibility for defrauding the Borough's residents, but blaming Camberwell Green Magistrates Court for doing so since 2009?

Yours sincerely,

Enid Brighton

FOI team, Lambeth Borough Council

Information request
Our reference: IR148117

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Ms. Brighton
 
Freedom of Information Act 2000
 
Further to your email of 18 March, the council is not defrauding its
residents, the only time that court costs are incurred is when a citizen
fails to pay as charged. The cost to the council for raising a summons has
not changed which is why we have not approached the Court for either an
increase or decrease in the costs amount.

Thank you for your interest in Lambeth Council.
 
Yours sincerely
 
 
Richard Carter
Freedom of Information Co-ordinator
 
FOI team
London Borough of Lambeth
 
Tel. 07710 026 240
E-mail [email address]
Website: [1]www.lambeth.gov.uk
 
Lambeth - a Co-operative Council
 
"This email (and/or attachment) may contain information that is legally
privileged.  If you have received this in error please notify the sender
immediately"
Disclaimers apply for full details see
http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/EmailDisclaime...

References

Visible links
1. http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/

Adamna left an annotation ()

It is simply not credible that the alleged costs have not altered either way in 13 years. Nor have they responded to the question of impermissible costs.

Dear FOI team,

Re; "...the council is not defrauding its residents, the only time that court costs are incurred is when a citizen fails to pay as charged. "

Can you please explain the significance of the above, as it seems irrelevant to the issue, unless you are implying the costs are artificially inflated as a penalty to encourage prompt payment. Is that the significance?

Can you also please clarify the position regarding the previous point I made:

"Do you have any revised information after considering the recent High Court ruling? For example, has the level of costs which are recharged to defendants been drastically reduced, now it is confirmed that it is impermissible to cover the entire cost of recovery with the costs, and under no circumstances are activities, which account for the majority of resources, permissible post-liability order?"

Yours sincerely,

Enid Brighton

Dear FOI team,

Have you had chance to consider the points I raised to be clarified on 23 March 2016?

Yours sincerely,

Enid Brighton

FOI team, Lambeth Borough Council

Information request
Our reference: IR148117

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Ms. Brighton
 
Freedom of Information Act 2000

Further to your email, I have now considered the points you raised to be
clarified on 23 March 2016.  I apologise for the delay in responding.
 

Re; "...the council is not defrauding its residents, the only time that
court costs are incurred is when a citizen fails to pay as charged. "
Can you please explain the significance of the above, as it seems
irrelevant to the issue, unless you are implying the costs are
artificially inflated as a penalty to encourage prompt payment. Is that
the significance?

Costs are not artificially inflated as a punitive measure. The relevance
of the queried part of the previous response is that if council tax
payments are made at the appropriate time then court costs will not be
incurred. Should a resident not pay their council tax then this could lead
to the imposition of costs, it is in no way a defrauding of the resident
but a recouping of the legitimate costs of recovering a debt to the
council.

Our costs were considered against those of the following local
authorities; Barking & Dagenham £123.00, Harrow £130.00, Islington £125.00
and Lewisham £125.00, when the actual raising of the costs were submitted
to Camberwell Green Magistrates’ Court in 2008 and were considered and
approved by the designated District Judge & Bench Chairman confirmed by
the Deputy Justices’ Clerk in her letter to the council dated 19 January
2009.

Do you have any revised information after considering the recent High
Court ruling? For example, has the level of costs which are recharged to
defendants been drastically reduced, now it is confirmed that it is
impermissible to cover the entire cost of recovery with the costs, and
under no circumstances are activities, which account for the majority of
resources, permissible post-liability order?

Having considered the legislation and case law surrounding costs Lambeth
is currently reviewing the current level of the costs but the review is
yet to be concluded, as such there is no revised information to share.

Thank you for your interest in the Council.
Yours sincerely
 
 
Richard Carter
Freedom of Information Co-ordinator
 
FOI team
London Borough of Lambeth
 
Tel. 07710 026 240
E-mail [email address]
Website: [1]www.lambeth.gov.uk
 
Lambeth - a Co-operative Council
 
"This email (and/or attachment) may contain information that is legally
privileged.  If you have received this in error please notify the sender
immediately"
Disclaimers apply for full details see
http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/EmailDisclaime...

References

Visible links
1. http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/

Adamna left an annotation ()

The issue is not whether the costs were reasonable in comparison to other councils’ costs, but whether they were reasonably incurred, and there needs to be detailed relatable figures to support the actual cost of issuing a summons. This should be absolutely clear by now, after the Nicolson case.
In any case, it was a somewhat disingenuous comparison, as well as inaccurate.
Barking and Dagenham - £93 for a summons and £30 for a Liability order, totalling £123
Harrow - £125 for a summons (not £130), also unlawfully ‘front loading’ the Liability Order costs, which were nil.
Islington - £115 for a summons and £10 for a Liability Order, totalling £125
Lewisham - £75 for a summons and £50 for a Liability Order, totalling £125
In contrast:
Lambeth proposed (and was approved) to charge £122 for a summons and £5 for a Liability order, totalling £127 making it probably the most expensive process in all 326 charging authorities, not at all as reasonable as they wished to make it seem.

fFaudwAtch UK (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

Having taken the liberty of classifying this request as partially successful it is obvious that Lambeth is delaying its review of costs because the longer that process takes the more wonga it will have amassed.

Dear FOI team,

Whilst I await an outcome of the review of costs, I would like it confirming whether I had been reliably informed with regard my assertion in my original request, i.e., that;

" Parameters are agreed in advance by the relevant manager and set in its Council Tax processing system relating to the number of days behind and the monetary value etc., and summonses are issued on this basis. "

Yours sincerely,

Enid Brighton

Jane Shields, Lambeth Borough Council

Dear Ms Brighton

We have reviewed our previous responses to this request and confirm we
consider it is closed.

Please note that the Freedom of Information Act provides access to
recorded information; the function of the Act is not to comment on or
clarify the statements of applicants. We consider we have fully explained
the summons process.

We do not consider an internal review would be appropriate.

Please note you can refer to the ICO should you be dissatisfied.

Regards

Jane Shields LLB LLM
Policy & Communications Manager

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear FOI team,
Whilst I await an outcome of the review of costs, I would like it
confirming whether I had been reliably informed with regard my assertion
in my original request, i.e., that;
" Parameters are agreed in advance by the relevant manager and set in its
Council Tax processing system relating to the number of days behind and
the monetary value etc., and summonses are issued on this basis. "
Yours sincerely,
Enid Brighton

show quoted sections

Dear Jane Shields,

A simple clarification is all I wanted. I take it from your evasive response that the process of issuing summonses is completely automated therefore the claim of £122 can not be supported?

Yours sincerely,

Enid Brighton

Adamna left an annotation ()

Jane Shields LLB LLM is a lawyer specialising in data protection helicoptered in to dismiss (and protect) everything as a modus operandi.

Jane Shields, Lambeth Borough Council

Dear Ms Brighton

I refer you to my earlier emails. Lambeth Council has responded fully to
this request.

Should you be dissatisfied please refer to the ICO

Regards

Jane Shields LLB LLM
Policy & Communications Manager

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Jane Shields,
A simple clarification is all I wanted. I take it from your evasive
response that the process of issuing summonses is completely automated
therefore the claim of £122 can not be supported?
Yours sincerely,
Enid Brighton

show quoted sections

Dear Jane Shields,

Change the record.

Yours sincerely,

Enid Brighton

Dorothy Matricks (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

I marked this request as partially successful because although the requester doesn't seem to have received everything she asked for I would say Jane Shields, LLB LLM, Policy & Communications Manager is pretty adamant that she's not going to be given anything more.