No checks made before issuing court summons

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

The request was refused by Leicester City Council.

Dear Leicester City 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 £67.50 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 £67.50 sum.

Yours faithfully,

Enid Brighton

info-requests, Leicester City Council

2 Attachments

 

 

[1]LCC 75mm TIFFPlease ask for:       Information Governance Team

Direct line:              (0116) 454 1300

Email:                     [2][Leicester City Council request email]

Website:                 [3]www.leicester.gov.uk
                                                     

Our ref:                   FOIA 6991

Date:                      14^th November 2014

 

 

 

 

Dear Ms Brighton

 

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000

 

Thank you for your email of 14^th November 2014  requesting information
about Council Tax Summonses,

 

Your request is being dealt with under the terms of the Freedom of
Information Act 2000 and will be answered within twenty working days. 

 

If you have any queries about this request do not hesitate to contact me.
Please remember to quote the reference number above in any future
communications.

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

 

Information Governance Team

 

 

 

References

Visible links
2. mailto:[Leicester City Council request email]
3. http://www.leicester.gov.uk/

info-requests, Leicester City Council

2 Attachments

Dear Ms Brighton,

 

Please find attached Leicester City Council’s response to your recent
Freedom of Information request.

 

Regards

 

Lynn Wyeth

Information Governance Manager

Information & Customer Access

Telephone: 0116 454 1300

Email: [1][Leicester City Council request email]

 

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[Leicester City Council request email]

Dear info-requests,

Thank you for your reply, in which you state the following:

"As an example, summonses based upon parameters, are issued only after certain manual checks have been carried out to ensure full names are shown, addresses are correctly displayed, all relevant court dates and times are given and that deceased or bankrupt charge payers are excluded."

The checks carried out which appear very limited may account for why summonses are still issued erroneously with respect to the amount of Council Tax outstanding.

Reading an account of someone's experience with North East Lincolnshire Council confirms there are no meaningful checks. The link (below) describes a system where it is inconceivable that any checks regarding the liability are made before the authority embarks on court action and even ignores concerns raised until the incident is reported to the police.

http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/show...

Yours sincerely,

Enid Brighton

Dear info-requests,

I have studied the calculation on which Leicester City Council's court costs are based (the average of Oadby and Wigston, Rutland, Leicester City and Charnwood). This I believe represents the costs for all nine billing authorities in Leicestershire and Rutland so that they all now apply summons costs of £70.

Also none of the authorities raise additional costs at the time of the application for a Liability Order so must assume those costs are included in the summons charge.

It must be said that it appears that the accounts have all been fiddled (in various ways) to return an individual cost of roughly £70.

The many errors (too numerous to cover here) are inconsistent from one calculation to another.

Both Leicester and Charnwood councils account for staff time twice. The hourly rate for staff dealing with recovery is calculated at £14.12 then doubled to £28.24. This is justified on the basis that the cost of employing staff to cover for non-recovery work whilst staff are dealing with recovery work is considered to be an additional cost attributed to recovery.

However skilfully one argues its legitimacy the fact remains that for each hour that is claimed to be spent on staff’s wages, the council tells the court it pays two.

Rutland's inconsistent approach in attributing staff hours is evident with it listing a range of hourly rates it applies to various aspects of recovery. Nowhere though in its calculation does it double the hourly rate in the way Leicester and Charnwood do. The calculation for Oadby & Wigston, like Rutland, lists a similar range of hourly rates but unexplainably uses in its calculation the same doubled-up rate (£28.24) as Leicester.

The letter which presumably Leicester City Council has (see below) dated 14 February 2014 from the Justices' Clerk (Leicester Magistrates’ Court) makes a statement about the costings being affected by at least a 50% increase in recovery due to the benefit reforms. This would naturally call for the summons costs to be calculated at a lesser sum because of the effect of economies of scale.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/2...

The calculations seem to make allowances for costs which are uncollected. In the case of Charnwood this is certainly the case where a sum 20% lower than the estimated summonses is used to determine the individual costs. In doing this, it is obvious that the defendants left actually paying the costs are paying an inflated sum to either compensate for the council's error of judgement or subsidise the costs of those others having them waived for reasons likely that they agree to the council's favourable terms, for example, switching their method of payment to Direct Debit.

The certainty is, that by loading extra costs on to the debtor for expenditure otherwise unrecoverable, the council would not be justified in stating to the Magistrates' court that the amount claimed by way of costs in any individual case is no more than that reasonably incurred by the authority.

It must be remembered that in many cases, a debtor will settle all outstanding debt on receipt of a summons without causing the council further work which will almost certainly be included in the spread sheet listed as 'Other Staff Costs', 'Other Admin Costs' and 'Normal Account Maintenance Charge'. The council would not be justified in stating to the Magistrates' court that the amount claimed by way of costs in any individual case is no more than that reasonably incurred by the authority.

A person settling his debt which included the standard sum of costs would be within his rights to challenge them on the grounds that he is left actually paying an inflated sum to subsidise the costs of others who do cause the council further work but don't pay them or have them applied. Therefore, if due process followed, the court would have no reasonable alternative to determine that the standard costs applied were more than that reasonably incurred by the authority in his individual case.

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.

In all four calculations there is clearly the inclusion of expenditure falling outside the defining boundaries for which the regulations clearly confine costs to the summons for example, and additional work to obtain the Liability Order.

In accordance with the regulations; costs must be applied initially at a lesser sum than the total in respect of the summons and a further sum on being granted the liability order.

It is evident that all Leicestershire and Rutland authorities charge £70 in respect of the summons, which is the same costs it imposes on debtors where their cases proceed to application for a liability order. However, the summons costs should be a lesser sum than the total in respect of being granted the liability order. There is no such distinction in the way these costs are applied which means (with evidence from the calculations) that the costs are unlawfully front loaded to the summons.

This is similarly loading extra costs on to the debtor in respect of inflated sums to subsidise the costs of others who do cause the council further work (making the application for liability order) for which the council would not be justified in stating to the Magistrates' court that the amount claimed by way of costs in any individual case is no more than that reasonably incurred by the authority.

To reiterate the point made earlier, 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.

All calculations add an element of costs which are attributable to the cost of additional borrowing (interest) in respect of delayed payment. The irony here is that because the whole year's liability (or the remainder of it) is paid in advance, as a lump sum on receipt of a summons, the cost due to delayed payment should actually be a minus figure. There is in fact a monetary gain for the council.

In cases where a summons is issued, there is a cost element that benefits the council which should be offset against expenditure incurred in applying to the court due to advanced payment collected from the taxpayer which reduces the cost of borrowing.

I would like the cost of the summons issue which relates to (and is described at) regulation 34(5) of SI 1992/613, i.e. in respect of a customer who simply receives a summons and settles outstanding liability before the date of the hearing without need to make contact with the local authority to query the demand.

Yours sincerely,

Enid Brighton

info-requests, Leicester City Council

Please ask for:                   Information Governance

Direct Line:                          0116 454 1300

E-mail:                                  
[1][Leicester City Council request email]                          

Our Ref:                                FOI 7229

Date:                                      30^th December 2014

 

 

Enid Brighton

[FOI #239212 email]

 

 

Dear Ms Brighton

 

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000

 

Thank you for your email of 29^th December 2014 requesting information
about the calculation of summons costs.

 

Your request is being dealt with under the terms of the Freedom of
Information Act 2000 and will be answered within twenty working days. 

 

If you have any queries about this request do not hesitate to contact me.
Please remember to quote the reference number above in any future
communications.

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

Information Governance

 

 

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[Leicester City Council request email]

info-requests, Leicester City Council

1 Attachment

 

 

 

Dear  Ms Brighton 

 

Please find attached Leicester City Council’s response to your recent
Freedom of Information request.

 

Regards

 

Lynn Wyeth

Information Governance Manager

Information & Customer Access

Telephone: 0116 454 1300

Email: [1][Leicester City Council request email]

 

 

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[Leicester City Council request email]

Dear Leicester City Council,

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

I am writing to request an internal review of Leicester City Council's handling of my FOI request 'No checks made before issuing court summons'.

"Answer:

As the breakdown of the costs calculation is not held at this level of detail, we are unable to provide any further information other than what you have already received. Therefore this letter acts as a refusal notice under section 17.1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 because, in accordance with section 1.1 of the Act, this information is not held by Leicester City Council."

Leicester City Council has what may be considered a business reason to hold the information as it has a legal obligation to comply with the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 which provides the following at regulation 34(5):

"(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. "

The above provides that a lesser sum than the overall costs of obtaining the liability order for cases which proceed to a court hearing is payable in respect of instituting the summons therefore on the balance of probabilities the council will hold this information.

Further to this:

A calculation justifying its 2011-12 costs detailed that only 65% (£41.25) of its overall expenditure of £63 per liability order was attributable to instituting the summons. This is the costs which relate to regulation 34(5)(b).

Apparently, even though it then held a breakdown of the costs to the level requested, they were all front loaded in respect of customers who were issued a summons. Even the broad estimate of overall expenditure was misrepresented because, for example, expenditure in respect of staff time had been doubled to inflate it.

Notwithstanding the misrepresentation of the breakdown it is evident that the standard costs have been set at a level to cover a broad estimate of overall expenditure which includes bad debt, waived costs, subsidising costs of court hearings, setting up payment plans, dealing with queries etc.

Leicester City council must be aware that it is open to those against whom it proceeds to challenge the application in their individual cases, and should at least where representation is made about the costs be able to determine, where liability is straightforwardly settled, the appropriate expenditure incurred to ensure that its customers are treated lawfully.

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

Yours faithfully,

Enid Brighton

info-requests, Leicester City Council

1 Attachment

Please ask for:                  Lynn Wyeth

Direct Line:                       0116 454 1300

E-mail:                              [1][email address]

Our Ref:                           FOIA Appeal 7309

Date:                                19^th January 2015

 

 

Dear Ms Brighton

 

APPEAL REQUEST

 

Thank you for your eMail dated 17^th January 2015 requesting an appeal in
regards to your Freedom of Information requests 6991, 7229.

 

Please accept this eMail as confirmation that I have received your
appeal.  An independent Manager will investigate the matter you have
raised and we shall aim to have a response to you by the 13^th February
2015.

 

Should for any reason my investigation take longer than this I will write
to you explaining the reasons for the delay and let you know when you will
receive a response.

 

 

Yours sincerely

[2]cid:image001.jpg@01CEF683.643533C0

Lynn Wyeth

Information Governance Manager

 

 

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]

Dear info-requests,

Please note Leicester 's Council Tax Billing & Collection Policy appears to be out of date.

http://www.leicester.gov.uk/EasysiteWeb/...

The information below is not current:

"...the figure changes annually and is £55.00 from April 2010. Small balance debts below this threshold may also be summonsed; however the costs are set at £13.00."

Yours sincerely,

Enid Brighton

info-requests, Leicester City Council

Dear Ms Brighton

Thank you for your below email.

As stated on our website, the Council Tax and NNDR billing and collection policy, and associated documents are currently being revised. This should be completed by early March.

Kind regards

Lynn

show quoted sections

info-requests, Leicester City Council

1 Attachment

Dear Ms Brighton

Please find attached Leicester City Council’s response to your recent
Freedom of Information Act Appeal.

 

Regards

 

Lynn Wyeth

Information Governance Manager

Information & Customer Access

Telephone: 0116 454 1300

Email: [1][Leicester City Council request email]

 

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[Leicester City Council request email]

Dear info-requests,

I would like to give LCC the opportunity of revising its response so that it has regard for the following:

"I would like the cost of the summons issue which relates to (and is described at) regulation 34(5) of SI 1992/613, i.e. in respect of a customer who simply receives a summons and settles outstanding liability before the date of the hearing."

You may notice I've removed the obligation for the council to consider any variance in costs specifically attributable to whether or not any contact is made by the defendant with the local authority in respect of the demand (summons).

As highlighted in the calculation justifying its 2011-12 costs, those specifically relating to regulation 34(5)(b) were determined and therefore unlikely that the Information Commissioner will find any legitimate reason to support LCC's claim that it does not hold the information.

Please be aware that complaint will be made to the Commissioner if an unreasonable response is given.

Yours sincerely,

Enid Brighton

info-requests, Leicester City Council

Dear Ms Brighton

Further to your email below, our decision is final. If you are not satisfied with the response you can appeal to the Information Commissioner's Office.

Regards
Lynn

show quoted sections

Dear info-requests,

I have already said I will be submitting a complaint to the ICO if the response was unreasonable.

Leicester City Council has been given enough chances to avoid the public expense of the Commissioner's involvement (not to mention my expense and time) and therefore I will be pursuing this as a matter additional to Freedom of Information non-compliance.

Leicester City Council has also been made aware that it has been noticed how it falsifies accounts to defraud its residents through applications for liability orders in the Magistrates' court.

This will have to be included in the complaint, and in any event will be reported to the police.

Yours sincerely,

Enid Brighton