Ombudsman decision (17 015 944) - misallocated Council Tax payments
Dear Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service,
The request below was made to Hull City Council who was able to provide the information in respect of question 1. The council suggests that the information in respect of questions 2 and 3 may be held by the court.
'Please find the following from the LGO decision
https://www.lgo.org.uk/decisions/benefit...
46. Mr F made further payments totalling £941 by cheque for Properties X and Z, his covering letters said which debts these payments were for. Because his payments did not match specific instalments, they were automatically allocated to the oldest debts.
EVENTS LEADING TO MR F's 2016 COMPLAINT
47. In January 2016 the Council obtained two liability orders. The first was for Property Y for £3,425.49.
48. The court also granted a liability order for the 2015/16 council tax debt for Properties X and Z, which totalled £1,656.03. In court the magistrates did not consider the way Mr F’s payments had been allocated.
.......
50. Mr F then complained to the Council that it had not allocated his payments for Properties X and Z to the 2015/16 debt. The Council said that because of the court’s decision in January 2016 the payments would remain allocated against the oldest debts and the 2015/16 council tax for Properties X and Z remained due.
..........
65. With regards to the council tax charges for Properties X and Z. The liability order granted in January 2016 was for 2015/16 council tax arrears. After the Council applied for the order Mr F made further payments of £941 to this account. These payments were allocated to outstanding debts from 2011/12 to 2014/15 as they did not match exact instalments. When the Court granted the liability order it decided that those payments would remain allocated to the earlier debts. The 2015/16 council tax was therefore still owing.
It is evident from all case authority relevant to the appropriation of payments that when a person is indebted to another on more than one account it is the debtor’s right to choose which account monies paid is allocated to.
The most recent case law appears to be R v Miskin Lower Justices [1953]
http://s000.tinyupload.com/index.php?fil...
Clearly in light of the above the court's decision was erroneous in law and the council were able to exploit this to cause continued injustice to the Council Taxpayer against whom monies were wrongly pursued by engineering default on other accounts for which subsequent applications for Liability Orders were made.
I would like the following information relating to the January 2016 Council Tax liability hearing.
1. At which court did the hearing take place
2. Who were the presiding Magistrates / District Judge
3. What legal advice was given (if any) by the Clerk to the Justices or Deputy Clerk to the Justices about the law surrounding the appropriation of payments'
Yours faithfully,
Marion Lloyd
Dear Ms Lloyd,
Please find attached the acknowledgment to your Freedom of Information
request relating to Hull City Council and Council Tax.
Yours sincerely
K Smith
NE Delivery Directors Office
For information on how HMCTS uses personal data about you please see
[1]Here is how HMCTS uses personal data about you.
________________________________
This e-mail and any attachments 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. 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.
References
Visible links
1. https://www.gov.uk/government/organisati...
Ed Boyce left an annotation ()
Local Government & Social Care Ombudsman - also known as a complete waste of space, time and effort
In 2016 Mr F complained about the way the Council had allocated his payments to different accounts. Due to the Ombudsman' time limits... I have not investigated this complaint.
( So completely ignore the most important aspect to let the council off the hook, how very convenient)
Allocation of payments
16. ... the council has to agree if they will allow your money to be used for the year you choose.
( Again how very convenient for the council over-Lords)
Enforcement agent's visit
60. In October 2017 the Police decided not to prosecute the agent.
( No surprise there, they work alongside them and coverup the crimes.)
Kent Police & Rogue Bailiffs unlawful eviction - Maidstone Against Corruption https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ImXM1mZ...
Gwyn Worth very interesting link what book did this come from?
Maidstone Borough Council's reply to your request
'Ensuring customers are not subject to unnecessary recovery action, additional costs or hardship-
" Whilst we retain the ability to re- allocate any payments made, it is the Responsibilty of the liable party to advise if this is necessary."
( Of course the council simply ignore this and refuse to move the money even when letters are sent because they can then unlawfully bankrupt their so- called 'customers' in the county court and then violently evict them using the Chancery Division of the High Court. And if that does not work they lodge a second bankruptcy petition to bankrupt them again whilst the first bankruptcy order is still in place.)
Gwyn Worth left an annotation ()
Ed Boyce
"Gwyn Worth very interesting link what book did this come from? "
Ipswich Borough Council provided it to support its response (here):
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/e...
Can't find out which book it was copied from.
In case this is of interest, it was held in Fernando v. Fernando (Sri Lankan case around the time of Miskin) that where the purpose for which a payment is made is unspecified “it must be carried to that account which it is most beneficial to the debtor to reduce".
http://www.lawnet.gov.lk/wp-content/uplo...
Dear Ms Lloyd,
Please find attached response to your Freedom of Information request
relating to Hull City Council and Council Tax liability hearing in 2016.
Yours sincerely
K Smith
NE Delivery Directors Office
For information on how HMCTS uses personal data about you please see
[1]Here is how HMCTS uses personal data about you.
________________________________
This e-mail and any attachments 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. 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.
References
Visible links
1. https://www.gov.uk/government/organisati...
Dear NE RSU FOI & DPA,
"FOI is a public disclosure regime, not a private regime. This means that any information disclosed under the FOIA by definition becomes available to the wider public. If any information were held, confirming this would reveal to the world at large that this individual was involved in the justice system; this would constitute the personal data of that individual."
The above can not be relevant to an exemption when you consider that the judiciary publishes on-line who are involved in the justice system.
For example the relevant web-page listing the District Judges (Magistrates’ Courts) is below:
https://www.judiciary.uk/about-the-judic...
Yours sincerely,
Marion Lloyd
Thank you for your email. It has been received by the NE RSU FOI & DPA
Team. This inbox is monitored regularly and a member of the team will
respond in due course.
***Please be aware if you mark your message as private, we will not be
able to see this in our inbox. Please send under standard MS outlook
settings***
Dear Ms Lloyd,
Please find attached an acknowledgement of your Internal Review relating
to Freedom of Information Act request 190523011
Kind regards,
Knowledge Information Liaison Officer
North West Regional Support Unit | Manchester Civil Justice Centre | 1
Bridge St West | Manchester M60 1TE
Web: [1]www.gov.uk/hmcts
[2]cid:image003.png@01D50FF0.C4B806A0
For information on how HMCTS uses personal data about you please see:
[3]https://www.gov.uk/government/organisati...
Good afternoon,
Please see attached FOI response.
Regards,
[1]cid:image001.png@01D47056.78628D50
Dear CommercialCorrespondence,
Your review letter of 24 June appears to be exactly the same as the FOI response letter of 20 June.
Yours sincerely,
Marion Lloyd
Dear CommercialCorrespondence,
Do your have a response to replace the one provided in error on 24 June?
Yours sincerely,
Marion Lloyd
Dear CommercialCorrespondence,
Your review letter of 24 June apart from the date is exactly the same as the FOI response letter of 20 June. Can you please replace the response you provided on 24 June with the intended one.
Yours sincerely,
Marion Lloyd
Dear Ms Lloyd,
Please find attached the response to your request for an internal review
and a copy of the Record Retention & Disposition Schedule in relation to
Magistrates Court records.
Yours sincerely
Knowledge & Information Officer
North West Regional Office
(Sent by NE Regional Office on behlaf of North West)
For information on how HMCTS uses personal data about you please see
[1]Here is how HMCTS uses personal data about you.
________________________________
This e-mail and any attachments 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. 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.
References
Visible links
1. https://www.gov.uk/government/organisati...
Dear NE RSU FOI & DPA,
I'm sorry, I can't see any logic to the response. You have stated that records are only retained of summonses/liability orders for a limited period of time when the request asks for something completely different. You also support your response with personal data protection restrictions which clearly do not apply.
Please look again at my request:
The request below was made to Hull City Council who was able to provide the information in respect of question 1. The council suggests that the information in respect of questions 2 and 3 may be held by the court.
'Please find the following from the LGO decision
https://www.lgo.org.uk/decisions/benefit...
46. Mr F made further payments totalling £941 by cheque for Properties X and Z, his covering letters said which debts these payments were for. Because his payments did not match specific instalments, they were automatically allocated to the oldest debts.
EVENTS LEADING TO MR F's 2016 COMPLAINT
47. In January 2016 the Council obtained two liability orders. The first was for Property Y for £3,425.49.
48. The court also granted a liability order for the 2015/16 council tax debt for Properties X and Z, which totalled £1,656.03. In court the magistrates did not consider the way Mr F’s payments had been allocated.
.......
50. Mr F then complained to the Council that it had not allocated his payments for Properties X and Z to the 2015/16 debt. The Council said that because of the court’s decision in January 2016 the payments would remain allocated against the oldest debts and the 2015/16 council tax for Properties X and Z remained due.
..........
65. With regards to the council tax charges for Properties X and Z. The liability order granted in January 2016 was for 2015/16 council tax arrears. After the Council applied for the order Mr F made further payments of £941 to this account. These payments were allocated to outstanding debts from 2011/12 to 2014/15 as they did not match exact instalments. When the Court granted the liability order it decided that those payments would remain allocated to the earlier debts. The 2015/16 council tax was therefore still owing.
It is evident from all case authority relevant to the appropriation of payments that when a person is indebted to another on more than one account it is the debtor’s right to choose which account monies paid is allocated to.
The most recent case law appears to be R v Miskin Lower Justices [1953]
http://s000.tinyupload.com/index.php?fil...
Clearly in light of the above the court's decision was erroneous in law and the council were able to exploit this to cause continued injustice to the Council Taxpayer against whom monies were wrongly pursued by engineering default on other accounts for which subsequent applications for Liability Orders were made.
I would like the following information relating to the January 2016 Council Tax liability hearing.
1. At which court did the hearing take place
2. Who were the presiding Magistrates / District Judge
3. What legal advice was given (if any) by the Clerk to the Justices or Deputy Clerk to the Justices about the law surrounding the appropriation of payments'
Yours sincerely,
Marion Lloyd
Thank you for your email. It has been received by the NE RSU FOI & DPA
Team. This inbox is monitored regularly and a member of the team will
respond in due course.
***Please be aware if you mark your message as private, we will not be
able to see this in our inbox. Please send under standard MS outlook
settings***
Dear Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service,
Can you please confirm that you are dealing with this.
Yours faithfully,
Marion Lloyd
Dear Ms Lloyd,
My apologies for the delay in responding to your comments by email on
10^th July 2019 following the internal review.
In respect of question one - it is noted that your FOI request to Hull
City Council provided you with that information - Hull & Holderness
Magistrates Court.
However, in respect of your further questions, because of the Record
Retention & Disposition policy of HMCTS, we are unable to answer further,
as the records have been destroyed question 2 cannot be answered as
without the case record we cannot identify the Magistrate / Judge. As we
cannot answer question 2 then we are unable to state whether legal advice
was given or not.
If you are unhappy with our decision then please contact the Information
Commissioners Office:-
Information Commissioner’s Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
[1]https://ico.org.uk/Global/contact-us
yours sincerely
K Smith
NE Delivery Directors Office
For information on how HMCTS uses personal data about you please see
[2]Here is how HMCTS uses personal data about you.
________________________________
This e-mail and any attachments 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. 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.
References
Visible links
1. https://ico.org.uk/Global/contact-us
2. https://www.gov.uk/government/organisati...
Dear NE RSU FOI & DPA,
Thank you for your response. Am I correct to assume that, in respect of Council Tax proceedings, the Magistrates Court operates on a toss a coin basis and there is no accountability whatsoever?
Yours sincerely,
Marion Lloyd
Thank you for your email. It has been received by the NE RSU FOI & DPA
Team. This inbox is monitored regularly and a member of the team will
respond in due course.
***Please be aware if you mark your message as private, we will not be
able to see this in our inbox. Please send under standard MS outlook
settings***
Dear Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service,
Did you consider my question of 7 August which effectively sought clarification regarding the accountability of the Magistrates Court in respect of Council Tax proceedings?
Yours faithfully,
Marion Lloyd
Dear Ms Lloyd,
Thank you for your email.
We have reviewed your question from the 07 August 2019 and can advise you that your enquiry does not fall under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) regime and has been rejected by the Disclosure Team.
It may be helpful if I explain that the FOIA gives individuals and organisations the right of access to all types of recorded information held, at the time the request is received, by public authorities such as the Ministry of Justice (MoJ). Section 84 of the FOIA states that in order for a request for information to be handled as a FOI request, it must be for recorded information.
For example, a FOI request would be for a copy of a policy, rather than an explanation as to why we have that policy in place. On occasion, the MoJ receives requests that do not ask for recorded information, but ask more general questions about, for example, a policy, opinion or a decision.
You may wish to re-submit your enquiry to the Ministry of Justice, which will be treated as Official Correspondence. Our contact details are as follows:
102 Petty France
London
SW1H 9AJ
If you do have any questions relating specifically to the FOIA or Data Protection Act (DPA), please contact the Disclosure Team at the following e-mail address: [HMCTS request email]
Kind regards,
The Disclosure Team
We work to defend the right to FOI for everyone
Help us protect your right to hold public authorities to account. Donate and support our work.
Donate Now
S. Jones left an annotation ()
Neil, the Lower Miskin case has nothing to do with liability orders under the 1992 Local Government Finance Act - it is a case relating to spousal maintenance under a number of Acts which have all been repealed. It's as if the police tried quoting a case under the Locomotives Act 1865 to show that someone was guilty of speeding because they were driving at more than 4 mph.