Tottenham Magistrates unlawful council tax liability proceedings

The request was partially successful.

fFaudwAtch UK (Account suspended)

Dear Ministry of Justice,

I would like all relevant material to which Mrs Justice Andrews referred that enabled the production of the judgment in R (Nicolson) v Tottenham Magistrates [2015] EWHC 1252 (Admin), and where applicable from whom it was obtained.

Sources for example would be the case papers in those proceedings but also to include any other Court/Tribunal judgments etc., or for that matter any representations involved in such proceedings and any law books referred to.

Yours faithfully,

fFaudwAtch UK

London RSU Kilo,

1 Attachment

Please see acknowledgement for your FOI request

 

Kind regards

 

Operations Support | Kilo

London Regional Support Unit | HMCTS | Post Point 9.02 | 102 Petty
France | London | SW1H 9AJ or DX 152380 Westminster 8

 

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.

Peter C. Bell left an annotation ()

You will find some of the information here:

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admi...

fFaudwAtch UK (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

Thank you Peter.

Particularly interesting is that at paragraph 56 of the link, the judge has relied on Government "Guidance" in her judgment. This evidently means that it has more legal sway than the description (guidance) suggests.

Stan Higgleston left an annotation ()

Enid Brighton (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

Relating to paragraph 50 of the judgment
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admi...

(21 December 2014)https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/n...

"the council does not differentiate the Summons Costs as the law provides and so there is no advantage for a debtor to pay promptly and may as well leave the debt outstanding for as long as possible but of course being mindful to settle before further enforcement costs are incurred."

- and -

(13 February 2015)https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/n...

"may be that the reason so few do pay is because they have knowledge that their costs would not increase should the case go ahead, therefore no incentive to pay promptly. This point was raised in my email, 21 December 2014."

Data Access & Compliance Unit, Ministry of Justice

Thank you for your e-mail, I am writing to advise you that your enquiry does not fall under the Freedom of Information regime and will be treated by the department as Official Correspondence.
 
It may be helpful if I explain that the Freedom of Information Act (2000) 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 Act states that in order for a request for information to be handled as a Freedom of Information (FOI) request, it must be for recorded information. For example, a Freedom of Information 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 Ministry of Justice receives requests that do not ask for recorded information, but ask more general questions about, for example, a policy, opinion or a decision.
 
Since you are asking for [give a brief synopsis of the requester's query e.g. clarification on court process], this will be dealt with as Official Correspondence and you can expect a response from the appropriate area of the department [you may wish (if known) to include the name of department you are sending the TO to/ shared inbox address if applicable].
 
If you do have any questions relating specifically to the Freedom of Information or Data Protection Act, please contact the Data Access and Compliance Unit at the following e-mail address: [email address

Many Thanks

Laura Watson

Dear Ministry of Justice,

I would like all relevant material to which Mrs Justice Andrews
referred that enabled the production of the judgment in R
(Nicolson) v Tottenham Magistrates [2015] EWHC 1252 (Admin), and
where applicable from whom it was obtained.

Sources for example would be the case papers in those proceedings
but also to include any other Court/Tribunal judgments etc., or for
that matter any representations involved in such proceedings and
any law books referred to.

Yours faithfully,

fFaudwAtch UK

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

Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[FOI #308448 email]

Is [MoJ request email] the wrong address for Freedom of
Information requests to Ministry of Justice? If so, please contact
us using this form:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/change_re...

Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be
published on the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/offi...

For more detailed guidance on safely disclosing information, read
the latest advice from the ICO:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/ico-...

If you find this service useful as an FOI officer, please ask your
web manager to link to us from your organisation's FOI page.

show quoted sections

fFaudwAtch UK (Account suspended)

Dear Data Access & Compliance Unit,

I would ask that you re-read my FOI request and hopefully after doing so you will agree that the information I wish to be disclosed can be identified as recorded information.

Your response appears to be a generic one and provided without first properly considering the information asked for.

I would like to make it clear that I have not asked for clarification on the court process which is how you have interpreted my FOI request.

I would therefore like the MoJ to get this matter back on track as soon as possible.

Yours sincerely,

fFaudwAtch UK

Data Access & Compliance Unit, Ministry of Justice

Dear Sir,

I am sorry for the email sent to you below, this was sent by mistake.

In order to take this forward can you please provide your full name under Section 8 of the Freedom of Information Act.

Once I have this I will begin to process your request.

Again I apologise for any inconvenience caused.

Many Thanks

Laura

Laura Watson| Business Manager | Communication and Information Directorate | Ministry of Justice 10.34, 102 Petty France, London, SW1H 9AJ | www.justice.gov.uk  | @MoJGovUK | @MoJPress

show quoted sections

fFaudwAtch UK (Account suspended)

Dear Data Access & Compliance Unit,

I have provided it to you in a previous FOI request. Please refer to reference number, FOI / 102206.

Yours sincerely,

fFaudwAtch UK

Data Access & Compliance Unit, Ministry of Justice

Thank you for your email.

Although you have previously provided your name for a previous request we need to have this for each request given, therefore in order to take this request forward we will need you to provide your name.

Many Thanks

Laura

Laura Watson| Business Manager | Communication and Information Directorate | Ministry of Justice 10.34, 102 Petty France, London, SW1H 9AJ |www.justice.gov.uk  | @MoJGovUK | @MoJPress

show quoted sections

fFaudwAtch UK (Account suspended)

Dear Data Access & Compliance Unit,

I don't have any objection to providing my name, however, the Ministry of Justice should really get with it and think about the nature of Freedom of Information requests which are applicant blind.

Yours sincerely,

fFaudwAtch UK Aka N Gilliatt

fFaudwAtch UK (Account suspended)

Dear Data Access & Compliance Unit,

Response to this request is delayed. By law, Ministry of Justice should have responded by 27 January 2016.

Yours sincerely,

fFaudwAtch UK

Enid Brighton (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

Relating to paragraph 46 of the judgment (double-counting)
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admi...

(17 September 2014)http://legalbeagles.info/forums/showthre...

"In its calculation it includes Officer's hourly rate, TWICE (shown around cell (H7) of the spreadsheet).

Quite criminally, by falsifying accounts to rob more from the taxpayer, they calculate the hourly rate at £13.94 then double that figure to £27.88 because they consider the cost of employing staff to cover for the non-recovery work while staff are dealing with recovery work to be allowable expenditure, cell (H11).

This rate was applied to 21,519 hours, equivalent to £599,949.72 added on in recovery costs of which at least half was added by sleight of hand."

- and -

(ANNEX A, paragraphs 150-167)https://www.scribd.com/doc/262650108/Con...

fFaudwAtch UK (Account suspended)

Dear Data Access & Compliance Unit,

Further to my 30 January 2016 correspondence, this request is delayed. By law, Ministry of Justice should have responded by 27 January 2016.

Yours sincerely,

fFaudwAtch UK

fFaudwAtch UK (Account suspended)

Dear Data Access & Compliance Unit,

Response to this request is long overdue. By law, under all circumstances, Ministry of Justice should have responded by now.

Yours sincerely,

fFaudwAtch UK

fFaudwAtch UK (Account suspended)

Dear Data Access & Compliance Unit,

Further to my 1 March 2016 email, response to this request is long overdue. By law, under all circumstances, Ministry of Justice should have responded by now.

Yours sincerely,

fFaudwAtch UK

fFaudwAtch UK (Account suspended)

Dear Ministry of Justice,

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

I am writing to request an internal review of Ministry of Justice's handling of my FOI request 'Tottenham Magistrates unlawful council tax liability proceedings'.

In order for this to be escalated to the Information Commissioner without delay I would appreciate this matter is attended to sooner rather than later.

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

Yours faithfully,

fFaudwAtch UK

fFaudwAtch UK (Account suspended)

Dear Data Access & Compliance Unit,

Is the MoJ receiving these emails?

Yours sincerely,

fFaudwAtch UK

fFaudwAtch UK (Account suspended)

Dear Data Access & Compliance Unit,

If I haven't received a response by the end of the month I will be escalating the matter to the Information Commissioner.

Yours sincerely,

fFaudwAtch UK

Data Access & Compliance Unit, Ministry of Justice

Dear Sir,

I have forwarded your email below to the business unit who were responsible for providing you with a response, and have asked them to contact you as soon as possible.

I am hoping this will be completed within the next few days.

Many Thanks

Laura

Laura Watson| Business Manager | Communication and Information Directorate | Ministry of Justice 10.34, 102 Petty France, London, SW1H 9AJ | www.justice.gov.uk  | @MoJGovUK | @MoJPress

show quoted sections

ivanataylor left an annotation ()

https://www.youtube.com/user/vonnielorna
Former Councillor, 17 years served , Raising the ALARM re- COUNCIL TAX and asking serious QUESTIONS re ENFORCEMENT and ADMINISTRATION , when ENOUGH IS ENOUGH we MUST hold them to account.

fFaudwAtch UK (Account suspended)

Dear Data Access & Compliance Unit,

Further to my 10 March 2016 email asking for a review, if there's no response by 20 April 2016 this matter will be escalated to the Information Commissioner.

Yours sincerely,

fFaudwAtch UK

Administrative Court Office, General Office,

Dear Sirs,

I write further to your e- mail received by the Court on 13^th January
2016 in which you request all relevant material to which Mrs Justice
Andrews referred that enabled the production of the judgement in R
(Nicolson) v Tottenham Magistrates

[2015] EWHC 1252 (Admin) and where applicable from whom it was obtained.
Please accept my sincere apologies for the delay in responding to you.

 

As you may be aware copies of certain Court documents can be provided
including the judicial review claim form and grounds, acknowledgement of
service and summary defence of grounds. However any further documents
cannot be released without an order of a judge. To request documents which
are not included in the above you will need to lodge an Application Notice
(using form PF244) together with a fee of £255 made payable to ‘HMCTS’.
The application notice will be considered by a judge who in the
circumstances of the case, may require any such application to be on
notice to the parties to the claim.

 

Any documents you wish to obtain including those mentioned above which do
not require a formal application can be requested in writing as an office
copy request (OCR) together with a fee of £10 made payable to HMCTS (for
the first 10 pages and 50p per page thereafter).  

 

For information on (British and Irish) case law and legislation, recent
decisions, cases of interest, European case law and other law related
British and Irish material you can visit [1]www.bailii.org

 

If you require anything further please do not hesitate to contact the
Court.

 

 

Kind Regards,

Rahima.

 

Rahima Rahman, Delivery Manager, Administrative Court Office, Telephone:
020 7073 6655, Fax: 020 7947 7876, If replying by email, please use the
following address:
[2][email address] The contents
of this email and any attachments may be confidential and are intended for
the use of the correct recipient(s) only.  If you have received this email
in error, please contact the author immediately.  It is an offence to
disclose or distribute the contents of this email and/or any attachments
without consent of the author.  If your email has not been acknowledged or
answered within 5 working days, or if you have difficulty reading this
email or any attachment included, please contact the author on the number
quoted above.  The author is not authorised to bind the Department
contractually, or to make representations or other statements which may
bind the Department in any way via electronic means.

                                                                                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                                                       
                                   

Operations Support | Kilo

London Regional Support Unit | HMCTS | Post Point 9.02 | 102 Petty France
| London | SW1H 9AJ or DX 152380 Westminster 8

show quoted sections

fFaudwAtch UK (Account suspended)

Dear Administrative Court Office, General Office,

This is a Freedom of Information request, not a Subject Access Request.

Yours sincerely,

fFaudwAtch UK

fFaudwAtch UK (Account suspended)

Dear Administrative Court Office, General Office,

My correspondence dated 18 April 2016 raised the issue about my submission being a Freedom of Information request rather than a Subject Access Request (SAR). I trust you made the connection that I do not expect to be charged for the information as one would expect to be when submitting a SAR.

If there is no evidence of the MoJ taking its duties seriously under the FoI Act by Thursday 12 May 2016 I will escalate the matter to the Information Commissioner.

Yours sincerely,

fFaudwAtch UK

fFaudwAtch UK (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

Request to review the Ministry of Justice's decision.

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane, Wilmslow
Cheshire SK9 5AF

18/05/16

Dear Sir/Madam

RE: INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF FOI REQUEST TO MOJ – Ref: FOI / 102270

I made a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Justice (the ‘MoJ’) on 28 December 2015. The details can be found on the “what do they know” website at the following address:

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

On 13 January 2016 the MoJ advised that the request did not fall under the Freedom of Information regime and would be treated by the department as Official Correspondence. It went on to explain that Section 84 of the FOIA states that in order for a request for information to be handled as a Freedom of Information request, it must be for recorded information and gave an example of a valid request. The MoJ wrongly assumed I was asking for a clarification on court process, whereas the information requested was recorded information which was valid under Section 84.

On 17 January 2016 I asked the MoJ if it would re-read my request in the hope that after doing so it would agree that the information I wished to be disclosed could be identified as recorded information (the response appeared generic and provided without first properly considering the information asked for). It was expressed that the information asked for was not clarification on the court process as the MoJ had interpreted it. The MoJ apologised on 18 January explaining that the email sent on 17 January was sent by mistake.

The MoJ had not responded by the 17 January 2016 deadline and on the 30 January I notified it about the delay. There was no response to that and so notified it about the delay again on 21 February. Two further notifications were sent on March 1st and 4th about the delay and as these did not elicit a response requested an internal review on 10 March 2016.

The MoJ was asked on 17 March if it was receiving correspondence because there was no acknowledgement to the request for an internal review. On the 25 March the MoJ was notified that if there was no response by the end of the month the matter would be escalated to the Information Commissioner.

On 29 March the MoJ replied stating that it had forwarded my email (25 March) to the business unit who were responsible for providing a response, and who were asked to make contact as soon as possible (hoped to be within the next few days).

There was no further contact made by 16 April and on that date the MoJ was notified that if there was no response by 20 April 2016 the matter would be escalated to the Information Commissioner.

On 18 April 2016 the MoJ provided its response which explained the following:

“copies of certain Court documents can be provided including the judicial review claim form and grounds, acknowledgement of service and summary defence of grounds. However any further documents cannot be released without an order of a judge. To request documents which are not included in the above you will need to lodge an Application Notice (using form PF244) together with a fee of £255 made payable to ‘HMCTS’. The application notice will be considered by a judge who in the circumstances of the case, may require any such application to be on notice to the parties to the claim.

Any documents you wish to obtain including those mentioned above which do not require a formal application can be requested in writing as an office copy request (OCR) together with a fee of £10 made payable to HMCTS (for the first 10 pages and 50p per page thereafter).”

On 18 April the MoJ was contacted as it was thought the organisation had mistaken the Freedom of Information request for a Subject Access Request (where a fee may be charged). It was clarified on 8 May 2016, having had nor response, that my 18 April correspondence raised the issue about my submission being a Freedom of Information request rather than a Subject Access Request (SAR), i.e., that it was not expected to be charged for the information as one would when submitting a SAR. It was also communicated that if it had not responded by 12 May I would escalate the matter to the Information Commissioner.

In order to have a properly accountable court process, it is essential that information surrounding cases is not made inaccessible to members of the public with the barrier of an application fee and for that reason it is warranted that the expertise of the Information Commissioner is called upon to review this.

Yours sincerely

fFaudwAtch UK

fFaudwAtch UK (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

Confirmation has been obtained from the Information Commissioner's Office (1 Sept 2016) that this case has been allocated to a Senior Case Officer to investigate.

fFaudwAtch UK (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

The Commissioner finds the MoJ in breach of section 1(1)(a) as it did not confirm to the complainant whether or not it holds the requested information and in breach of section 10(1) for failing to provide that confirmation within the statutory timeframe. The MoJ is required to comply with the request or issue a valid refusal notice as set out in section 17 of the FOIA.

Will link to the Decision Notice when available on the ICO website.

fFaudwAtch UK (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

Information Commissioner's Decision Notice:

https://ico.org.uk/media/action-weve-tak...

London RSU Kilo,

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Gilliat,

 

Please find attached the response to your FOI request.

 

Regards,

 

Knowledge Information Liasion Officer

London Regional Support Unit

3rd Floor, First Avenue House,

42-49 High Holborn

LondonWC1V 6NP

 

 

 

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.

Dorothy Matricks (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

Although the MOJ refused to disclose the information it looks as though there have been a fair few contributors who have provided what was asked for and so marked this request as partially successful.

Looking for an EU Authority?

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

AskTheEU.org