Composition of court costs - Council Tax/NNDR

The request was refused by North East Lincolnshire Council.

Dear North East Lincolnshire Council,

My request concerns the change in composition of incurred Magistrates' court costs in connection with liability order applications to enforce Council Tax and Business Rates arrears.

To clarify my request I have supplied data obtained from CIPFA Revenue Collection Statistics, See below:

=============================================

(2000/01)
http://www.cipfastats.net/uploads/revenu...

Council Tax: Summons – £10 | Liability Order – £32.50

Business Rates: Summons – £10 | Liability Order – £32.50

Council Tax/Business Rates: 24% of total cost in respect of instituting complaint (summons)

(2001/02)
http://www.cipfastats.net/uploads/Camera...

Council Tax: Summons – £10 | Liability Order – £35

Business Rates: Summons – £30 | Liability Order – £35

Council Tax: 22% of total cost in respect of summons

Business Rates: 46% of total cost in respect of summons

(2002/03)
http://www.cipfastats.net/uploads/RVCAME...

Council Tax: Summons – £15 | Liability Order – £35

30% of total cost in respect of summons

(2004/05)
http://www.cipfastats.net/uploads/Camera...

Council Tax: Summons – £30 | Liability Order – £25

Business Rates: Summons – £45 | Liability Order – £25

Council Tax: 55% costs in respect of summons

Business Rates: 64% costs in respect of summons

(2006/07)
http://www.cipfastats.net/uploads/camera...

Council Tax: Summons – £32 | Liability Order – £25

Business Rates: Summons – £47 | Liability Order – £25

Council Tax: 56% costs in respect of summons

Business Rates: 65% costs in respect of summons

(2011/12)
http://www.cipfastats.net/uploads/reve11...

Council Tax: Summons – £70 | Liability Order – £0.00

Business Rates: Summons – £70 | Liability Order – £0.00

Council Tax/Business Rates: 100% of total cost in respect of instituting complaint (summons)

=============================================

Please supply the following in relation to the above data:

1. a) What changes in either the administration regime or the fee payable per entry on the complaint list to the Magistrates Court accounts for the change in composition of Business rates summons from 24% of total cost in 2000/01 to 46% in 2001/02?

b) What changes in either the administration regime or the fee payable per entry on the complaint list to the Magistrates Court accounts for the Business rates summons (when compared with Council Tax summons) increasing by 200% in 2001/02?

2. What changes in either the administration regime or the fee payable per entry on the complaint list to the Magistrates Court accounts for the change in composition of Council Tax summons from 22% of total cost in 2001/02 to 30% in 2002/03?

3.a) What changes in either the administration regime or the fee payable per entry on the complaint list to the Magistrates Court accounts for the change in composition of Council Tax summons from 30% of total cost in 2002/03 to 55% in 2004/05?

b) What changes in either the administration regime or the fee payable per entry on the complaint list to the Magistrates Court accounts for the change in composition of Business Rates summons from 46% of total cost in 2001/02 to 64% in 2004/05?

c) What changes in either the administration regime or the fee payable per entry on the complaint list to the Magistrates Court accounts for the Business rates summons (when compared with Council Tax summons) increasing by 50% in 2004/05?

5. What changes in either the administration regime or the fee payable per entry on the complaint list to the Magistrates Court accounts for the increase of £2 in both Council Tax and Business Rates summons cost in 2006/07?

6. a) What changes in either the administration regime or the fee payable per entry on the complaint list to the Magistrates Court accounts for the change in composition of Council Tax summons from 56% of total cost in 2006/07 to 100% in 2011/12?

b) What changes in either the administration regime or the fee payable per entry on the complaint list to the Magistrates Court accounts for the change in composition of Business Rates summons from 65% of total cost in 2006/07 to 100% in 2011/12?

c) What changes in either the administration regime or the fee payable per entry on the complaint list to the Magistrates Court accounts for the reduction of £2 in total costs of Business Rates in 2011/12?

Yours faithfully,

R. Skinner

PPD - FOI, North East Lincolnshire Council

Dear R Skinner

I am pleased to acknowledge your request for information, which has been allocated the reference number 6079/1314

Your request has been passed to the relevant department for processing and you can expect your response within the 20 working day limit. If it will take us longer than 20 working days to respond to you, we will inform you of this and provide you with the expected date for receiving a response.

Further information about how we will deal with your Freedom of Information requests is available on our website at: http://www.nelincs.gov.uk/council/the-co....

Please feel free to contact me if you require any further information or assistance quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely on behalf of North East Lincolnshire Council

Feedback Officer
Resources Directorate

show quoted sections

PPD - FOI, North East Lincolnshire Council

Dear Mr Skinner
 
Thank you for your information request, reference number 6079_1314.
 
I wish to confirm that North East Lincolnshire Council holds the following
information.
 
1. a) What changes in either the administration regime or the fee payable
per entry on the complaint list to the Magistrates Court accounts for the
change in composition of Business rates summons from 24% of total cost in
2000/01 to 46% in 2001/02?
 
Change in Administration
We do not hold any information in respect to this element of your request.
 
Fee payable per entry on the complaint list
North East Lincolnshire Council Paid £0.70 per entry on the court list
 
b)  What changes in either the administration regime or the fee payable
per entry on the complaint list to the Magistrates Court accounts for the
Business rates summons (when compared with Council Tax summons) increasing
by 200% in 2001/02?
 
Change in Administration
We do not hold any information in respect to this element of your request.
 
Fee payable per entry on the complaint list
North East Lincolnshire Council Paid £0.70 per entry on the court list
 
2. What changes in either the administration regime or the fee payable per
entry on the complaint list to the Magistrates Court accounts for the
change in composition of Council Tax summons from 22% of total cost in
2001/02 to 30% in 2002/03?
 
Change in Administration
We do not hold any information in respect to this element of your request.
 
 
Fee payable per entry on the complaint list
North East Lincolnshire Council Paid £0.70 per entry on the court list
 
 
3.a) What changes in either the administration regime or the fee payable
per entry on the complaint list to the Magistrates Court accounts for the
change in composition of Council Tax summons from 30% of total cost in
2002/03 to 55% in 2004/05?
 
Change in Administration
We do not hold any information in respect to this element of your request.
 
Fee payable per entry on the complaint list
North East Lincolnshire Council Paid £0.70 per entry on the court list
 
 
b) What changes in either the administration regime or the fee payable per
entry on the complaint list to the Magistrates Court accounts for the
change in composition of Business Rates summons from 46% of total cost in
2001/02 to 64% in 2004/05?
 
Change in Administration
We do not hold any information in respect to this element of your request.
 
Fee payable per entry on the complaint list
North East Lincolnshire Council Paid £0.70 per entry on the court list
 
 
c)  What changes in either the administration regime or the fee payable
per entry on the complaint list to the Magistrates Court accounts for the
Business rates summons (when compared with Council Tax summons) increasing
by 50% in 2004/05?
 
Change in Administration
We do not hold any information in respect to this element of your request.
 
 
Fee payable per entry on the complaint list
North East Lincolnshire Council Paid £0.70 per entry on the court list
 
 
5. What changes in either the administration regime or the fee payable per
entry on the complaint list to the Magistrates Court accounts for the
increase of £2 in both Council Tax and Business Rates summons cost in
2006/07?
 
Change in Administration
We do not hold any information in respect to this element of your request.
 
Fee payable per entry on the complaint list
North East Lincolnshire Council Paid £3.00 per entry on the court list
 
 
6. a) What changes in either the administration regime or the fee payable
per entry on the complaint list to the Magistrates Court accounts for the
change in composition of Council Tax summons from 56% of total cost in
2006/07 to 100% in 2011/12?
 
Change in Administration
We do not hold any information in respect to this element of your request.
 
Fee payable per entry on the complaint list
North East Lincolnshire Council Paid £3.00 per entry on the court list
 
 
b) What changes in either the administration regime or the fee payable per
entry on the complaint list to the Magistrates Court accounts for the
change in composition of Business Rates summons from 65% of total cost in
2006/07 to 100% in 2011/12?
 
Change in Administration
We do not hold any information in respect to this element of your request.
 
Fee payable per entry on the complaint list
North East Lincolnshire Council Paid £3.00 per entry on the court list
 
 
c) What changes in either the administration regime or the fee payable per
entry on the complaint list to the Magistrates Court accounts for the
reduction of £2 in total costs of Business Rates in 2011/12?
 
Change in Administration
We do not hold any information in respect to this element of your request.
 
Fee payable per entry on the complaint list
North East Lincolnshire Council Paid £3.00 per entry on the court list
 
If you are unhappy with the response you have received, you have the right
to request an internal review by the Council. If following this you are
still dissatisfied you may contact the Office of the Information
Commissioner. If you wish to request an internal review, please contact me
and I will make the necessary arrangements.
 
Yours sincerely on behalf of North East Lincolnshire Council
 
Feedback Officer
Resources Directorate
 

show quoted sections

Neil Gilliatt (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

I have to warn you, NELC are telling you porkies.

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-...

There is no provision for the billing authority to impose costs for anything other than covering reasonably incurred expenditure. There are however, publicly available documents detailing how, by reviewing costs, it would benefit either from additional income and/or encouraging behaviour.

Question 1

(Additional £38,000 per annum cost income and to encourage behaviour)

A review in 2001 disclosed that if the respondent were to follow the trend of other councils by charging more in respect of Business Rates than for Council Tax (three times), the extra cost would encourage prompt payment. Intended to improve cash flow for the authority, the overall benefit from the review would potentially generate additional extra income of £38k per annum.

A Cabinet document “Minutes of Cabinet meeting 6 April 2001” ( http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/11... ) 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 a recurring theme. 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 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.

Question 2

(Increase summons costs to fund additional staff)

A cabinet document ( http://www.nelincs.gov.uk/committees/Fun... ) from November 2002 addressed staffing issues and the backlog of work created within the council’s Revenues and Benefits department due to problems encountered with IT systems.

The document highlighted that employing extra staff in the Council tax department was funded by raising the summons penalty by 50%.

At a weekly cost of almost £1,200 for each worker, a total of around £9,500 was paid out each week to hire agency staff in Revenues and Benefits to overcome problems brought about by complications in implementing a new IT system.

However, it is more relevant to focus on how the council funded extra members of staff to sort out the IT issues. It was council taxpayers, penalised by summons costs who more than funded these extra members of staff because of a correspondingly disproportionate increase in the Summons fee. This of course reinforces the assertion that the council uses liability order applications as an instrument to manipulate income generated by the authority for purposes other than costs incurred specifically for the work attributable to instituting the complaint.

The document implied that the Council could rely on at least 6,000 residents would be caught out each year by the Summons fee thus raising in excess of the additional £30,000 required to fund two extra staff to clear the backlog of work caused by IT complications.

However, the figure based on the subsequent three years average was not 6,000 but 12,277 householders liable for the summons penalty. The 50% or £5 increase in the Summons fee would therefore pay for in excess of four staff; more than double what it was looking to fund by residents caught out with these penalties.

Question 3

(Front load costs to summons)

There is apparently no recorded information for why costs have been arbitrarily split between what are termed the ‘summons’ and ‘liability order’. The tendency to proportion costs in favour of the ‘summons’ is evident with weight shifting over time to the more frequently incurred charge. In 2001/02 it was deemed only 22 per cent was incurred in respect of instituting the complaint (summons) whilst the following year this had risen to 30 per cent, and in 2006/07 considered to account for over a half of the total costs of securing the liability order.

Question 5

(Magistrates court fee increases)

The fee payable per entry on the complaint list to the Magistrates Court accounts for a small change in composition. This was increased by £2.30 in 2006/07 from £0.70 to £3 under the provision of the Magistrates' Courts Fees Order 2005, which came into force on 10/01/06 and would account for the summons costs rising by £2 in that year. The fee in respect of instigating the complaint has undergone no further changes to the level by any subsequent amendments to the Court Fees Order.

There must be an accounting for why costs, once weighted in respect of the court hearing and having only a fifth attributed for instituting the complaint are all now incurred at that stage.

Question 6

(Additional £188k annually through increasing and front loading summons costs)

The Council Tax Regulations are clear in stating that costs claimed should only be those which the authority reasonably incurs. They also distinguish between costs reasonably incurred in connection with the summons, regulation 34(5)(b) and those for obtaining the order, (7)(b).

" 34(5)(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, "

" 34(7)(b) a sum of an amount equal to the costs reasonably incurred by the applicant in obtaining the order. "

NELC has committed a breach of these regulations by front loading all the charge to the summons fee. Combining the charges, means everybody who receives a summons, will now automatically incur liability order costs. Those who settle their debt prior to court action are unnecessarily being penalised and would not have incurred this second charge if the two fees were charged in accordance with the law – which is independently.

Council Tax Regulations state under Regulation 34 that the fees are incurred incrementally. Firstly in respect of instituting the complaint in advance of the hearing (summons costs), secondly, in respect of the court hearing i.e. for when the liability order is granted, if the account holder has not settled the debt.

North East Lincolnshire Council is therefore unlawfully collecting penalties from debtors who settle their accounts prior to any court action. This procedure is not in accordance with Regulation 34(5) of the Council Tax Regulations, which requires that the authority shall not proceed with the application if the aggregate of the outstanding debt and costs reasonably incurred by the authority is paid or tendered to it.

Essentially authorities are not lawfully permitted to charge debtors the liability order costs detailed in Regulation 34(7)(b) in such circumstances; however, by charging these costs prematurely at the summons stage, they are doing exactly this.

North East Lincolnshire Council detailed in its 2011 budget proposals ( http://www.nelincs.gov.uk/committees/Fun... ) that it would raise a forecasted additional £752,000 over 4 years by increasing the summons cost. There was no supporting evidence to justify the increase. Hiking-up the costs and combining both the summons and liability order penalties into one were measures taken to achieve the increase in revenue.

The council is not permitted to make a profit and these costs should not be used as an instrument to manipulate income generated by the authority. This however, was blatantly the council’s intention when is set out its budget report of savings proposals. These were put forward as a result of council discussions taking part in private session where the press and public were excluded as the details were deemed to be exempt from publication.

It proposed to "Increase summons cost" and was listed in their budget proposals under the heading "Income Generation" and forecasted additional revenue of £188,000 for each of the following 4 years. Clearly this is acting outside the law when such fees are to cover Council Tax recovery, not constitute savings by way of income generation.

In another cabinet document “Council priorities, budget 2011/12 and medium term financial plan..” ( http://www.nelincs.gov.uk/committees/Fun... ) it reveals under the heading “Income Generation” at item 1.52, that the Magistrates' court played no part in authorising the increase in costs.

" Income Generation

1.52 In relation to proposed areas for charging to be introduced, 81 per cent favoured increased charges for summonses compared to 57 per cent who supported charging for replacement bins or garden waste collections. Only 15 per cent were not in favour of any charges being introduced. "

Clearly the decision to increase charges for the summons had not been brought about by additional costs incurred by the council. It was intended simply to plug a hole in its finances. This is reinforced by the proposals being put to a vote.

The law says awarded costs must be incurred, so increasing them on the strength of a ballot is clear evidence that additional incurred costs to the council was not a factor, and the decision made, simply to generate income.

Dear PPD - FOI,

I have been made aware that North East Lincolnshire Council has been less than open in regards its response to the information request.

Q1
Is it true that a disproportionate increase in the NNDR costs was a way of encouraging prompt payment?

Item 5 of the 6 April, 2001 Cabinet document:

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

Q2
The costs were increased by 50% to fund extra staff in the Council tax department to overcome problems brought about by complications in implementing a new IT system.

http://www.nelincs.gov.uk/committees/Fun...

Q6
The Council detailed in its 2011 budget proposals that it would raise a forecasted additional £752,000 over 4 years by hiking-up the costs and combining both the summons and liability order penalties into one.

http://www.nelincs.gov.uk/committees/Fun...

Letters between the Council and Magistrates' court:

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

Was the increase not intended simply to plug a hole in its finances? And – because of a consultation were 81 per cent favoured increased charges for summonses compared to 57 per cent who supported charging for replacement bins or garden waste collections – the proposals were put to a vote?

http://www.nelincs.gov.uk/committees/Fun...

Yours sincerely,

R. Skinner

PPD - FOI, North East Lincolnshire Council

Dear R Skinner

I am pleased to acknowledge your request for further information, reference number 6079_1314.

Your request has been passed to the relevant department for processing and you can expect your response within the 20 working day limit. If it will take us longer than 20 working days to respond to you, we will inform you of this and provide you with the expected date for receiving a response.

Further information about how we will deal with your Freedom of Information requests is available on our website at: http://www.nelincs.gov.uk/council/the-co....

Please feel free to contact me if you require any further information or assistance quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely on behalf of North East Lincolnshire Council

Feedback Officer
Resources Directorate

show quoted sections

T. Ruth left an annotation ()

No wonder the Chief Executive of North East Lincolnshire Council has turned his back on this authority.

You have to ask yourself though, if he was informed just to the extent of how corrupt an organisation he was letting himself into representing.

Then again, when you make £200K or so a year and there's no apparent accountability involved, why would anyone care if they were able to blag their way into the job.

PPD - FOI, North East Lincolnshire Council

Dear Mr Skinner
 
Thank you for your correspondence concerning the response to your request
6079-1314.
 
Our original response provided to you the information held in relation to
changes in the composition summons costs.
 
Your latest correspondence rather than making a request for information,
appears designed to engage the Council in debate or allow you to make
statements concerning the administration of Council Tax. The Council
therefore determine that this follow up request is vexatious in nature and
by virtue of section 14 (1) of the Freedom of Information Act will not be
responded to these further questions. 
 
If you are unhappy with the response you have received or the Council’s
application of section 14 (1) of the Freedom of Information Act, you have
the right to request an internal review by the Council. If following this
you are still dissatisfied you may contact the Office of the Information
Commissioner. If you wish to request an internal review, please contact me
and I will make the necessary arrangements.
 
Yours sincerely on behalf of North East Lincolnshire Council
 
Feedback Officer
Resources Directorate
 

show quoted sections

Dear North East Lincolnshire Council,

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

I am writing to request an internal review of North East Lincolnshire Council's handling of my FOI request 'Composition of court costs - Council Tax/NNDR'.

The reason for requesting the review is because North East Lincolnshire Council have almost without doubt been dishonest in its response.

It has been found out this time which makes one wonder if it has lied on other occasions, if so how many?

I give you in this request for review one more opportunity to provide an open and honest response.

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

Yours faithfully,

R. Skinner

PPD - FOI, North East Lincolnshire Council

Dear R. Skinner

I am pleased to acknowledge your request for an Internal Review of Freedom of Information Request 6079_1314.

Your request for an Internal Review has been passed to the relevant department for processing and you can expect your response within the 20 working day limit. If it will take us longer than 20 working days to respond to you, we will inform you of this and provide you with the expected date for receiving a response.

Further information about how we will deal with your Freedom of Information requests is available on our website at: http://www.nelincs.gov.uk/council/the-co....

Please feel free to contact me if you require any further information or assistance quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely on behalf of North East Lincolnshire Council

Feedback Officer
Resources Directorate

show quoted sections

PPD - FOI, North East Lincolnshire Council

Dear R. Skinner
Further to your request an Internal Review has taken place into North East
Lincolnshire Council's handling of your information request 6079_1314
concerning the composition of court costs for Council Tax and National
Non-Domestic Rates.
I have reviewed the response provided to you and the handling of your
request in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act and find:

 1. That your request was responded to within the statutory time of 20
working days;

 

 2. That you were informed that the information you asked for was held by
North East Lincolnshire Council;

 

 3. That you were provided with the information you asked for available
under the Freedom of Information Act;

 

 4. That you were provided with the reasons why any information you had
asked for could not be supplied to you under the Freedom of
Information Act; and

 

 5. That your response provided you with your rights of appeal. 

I am therefore satisfied that the Council has acted in accordance with the
Freedom of Information Act in the handling of your request. More
information could have been offered in relation to the setting of the
costs. I have now added this in you previous response below for your
reference.
 
1. a) What changes in either the administration regime or the fee payable
per entry on the complaint list to the Magistrates Court accounts for the
change in composition of Business rates summons from 24% of total cost in
2000/01 to 46% in 2001/02?
 
Change in Administration
We do not hold any information in respect to this element of your request.
 
Please see papers for the Cabinet meeting of 06/04/2001
[1]http://www.nelincs.gov.uk/meetings/commi... for further
information on the setting of the costs
 
Fee payable per entry on the complaint list
North East Lincolnshire Council Paid £0.70 per entry on the court list
 
b)  What changes in either the administration regime or the fee payable
per entry on the complaint list to the Magistrates Court accounts for the
Business rates summons (when compared with Council Tax summons) increasing
by 200% in 2001/02?
 
Change in Administration
 
Fee payable per entry on the complaint list
North East Lincolnshire Council Paid £0.70 per entry on the court list
 
2. What changes in either the administration regime or the fee payable per
entry on the complaint list to the Magistrates Court accounts for the
change in composition of Council Tax summons from 22% of total cost in
2001/02 to 30% in 2002/03?
 
Change in Administration
We do not hold any information in respect to this element of your request.
 
Please see papers for the Cabinet meeting of 08/11/2002
[2]http://www.nelincs.gov.uk/meetings/commi... for further
information on the setting of the costs
 
Fee payable per entry on the complaint list
North East Lincolnshire Council Paid £0.70 per entry on the court list
 
 
3.a) What changes in either the administration regime or the fee payable
per entry on the complaint list to the Magistrates Court accounts for the
change in composition of Council Tax summons from 30% of total cost in
2002/03 to 55% in 2004/05?
 
Change in Administration
We do not hold any information in respect to this element of your request.
 
Fee payable per entry on the complaint list
North East Lincolnshire Council Paid £0.70 per entry on the court list
 
 
b) What changes in either the administration regime or the fee payable per
entry on the complaint list to the Magistrates Court accounts for the
change in composition of Business Rates summons from 46% of total cost in
2001/02 to 64% in 2004/05?
 
Change in Administration
We do not hold any information in respect to this element of your request.
 
Increase determined by the service to reflect the costs reasonably
incurred for Council Tax collection and recovery by the  North East
Lincolnshire Council, as allowed by the  Council Tax Administration and
Enforcement regulations 1992.
 
Fee payable per entry on the complaint list
North East Lincolnshire Council Paid £0.70 per entry on the court list
 
 
c)  What changes in either the administration regime or the fee payable
per entry on the complaint list to the Magistrates Court accounts for the
Business rates summons (when compared with Council Tax summons) increasing
by 50% in 2004/05?
 
Change in Administration
We do not hold any information in respect to this element of your request.
 
 
Fee payable per entry on the complaint list
North East Lincolnshire Council Paid £0.70 per entry on the court list
 
 
5. What changes in either the administration regime or the fee payable per
entry on the complaint list to the Magistrates Court accounts for the
increase of £2 in both Council Tax and Business Rates summons cost in
2006/07?
 
Change in Administration
We do not hold any information in respect to this element of your request.
 
Increase determined by the service to reflect the costs reasonably
incurred for Council Tax collection and recovery by the  North East
Lincolnshire Council, as allowed by the  Council Tax Administration and
Enforcement regulations 1992.
 
Fee payable per entry on the complaint list
North East Lincolnshire Council Paid £3.00 per entry on the court list
 
 
6. a) What changes in either the administration regime or the fee payable
per entry on the complaint list to the Magistrates Court accounts for the
change in composition of Council Tax summons from 56% of total cost in
2006/07 to 100% in 2011/12?
 
Change in Administration
We do not hold any information in respect to this element of your request.
 
Please see papers for the Council meeting of 17/02/2011
[3]http://www.nelincs.gov.uk/meetings/commi... for
further information on the setting of the costs
 
Fee payable per entry on the complaint list
North East Lincolnshire Council Paid £3.00 per entry on the court list
 
 
b) What changes in either the administration regime or the fee payable per
entry on the complaint list to the Magistrates Court accounts for the
change in composition of Business Rates summons from 65% of total cost in
2006/07 to 100% in 2011/12?
 
Change in Administration
We do not hold any information in respect to this element of your request.
 
Fee payable per entry on the complaint list
North East Lincolnshire Council Paid £3.00 per entry on the court list
 
 
c) What changes in either the administration regime or the fee payable per
entry on the complaint list to the Magistrates Court accounts for the
reduction of £2 in total costs of Business Rates in 2011/12?
 
Change in Administration
We do not hold any information in respect to this element of your request.
 
Fee payable per entry on the complaint list
North East Lincolnshire Council Paid £3.00 per entry on the court list
 
 
I have reviewed the application of the Section 14 refusal and agree with
its application which identified that ‘your latest correspondence rather
than making a request for information, appears designed to engage the
Council in debate or allow you to make statements concerning the
administration of Council Tax.’ I therefore support the Council’s
determination that this follow up request is vexatious in nature, and by
virtue of section 14 (1) of the Freedom of Information Act, we will not be
responded to.
I trust that this Internal Review answers your queries in relation to your
request, and clarifies that your request has been handled in accordance
with the Freedom of Information Act. 
If you remain dissatisfied with the Council’s handling of your request, or
the decision of the internal review you can request an independent review
by contacting the Information Commissioner's Office at Wycliffe House,
Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire SK9 5AF.
Yours sincerely on behalf of North East Lincolnshire Council
 
Andrew Dulieu
Resources Directorate
 
 
 

show quoted sections

Dear PPD - FOI,

What planet are you on?

North East Lincolnshire Council has been caught out lying about information it holds and you are supporting the Council’s determination that the follow up request is vexatious and using section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information Act to dodge its responsibility in dealing with the request.

This is a stitch-up and welcome the day at least one officer at NELC spends time behind bars to reflect on its dishonesty.

Yours sincerely,

R. Skinner

PPD - FOI, North East Lincolnshire Council

Dear R. Skinner

Thank you for your further comments about your information request 6079_1314.

If you remain dissatisfied with the Council’s handling of your request, or the decision of the internal review you can request an independent review by contacting the Information Commissioner's Office at Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire SK9 5AF.

Yours sincerely on behalf of North East Lincolnshire Council

Feedback Officer
Resources Directorate

show quoted sections

Dear PPD - FOI,

"If you remain dissatisfied with the Council’s handling of your request, or the decision of the internal review you can request an independent review by contacting the Information Commissioner's Office"

Or you could just save the taxpayer by honestly dealing with this.

You know as well as I do that the Information Commissioner will take 6 months at least for the complaint to be allocated to a case officer, who will then favour NELC's side of the story, no matter how fabricated the submission.

Just another stitch-up between two clueless public bodies.

Yours sincerely,

R. Skinner

PPD - FOI, North East Lincolnshire Council

Dear R. Skinner

Thank you for your further comments about your information request 6079_1314.

If you remain dissatisfied with the Council’s handling of your request, or the decision of the internal review you can request an independent review by contacting the Information Commissioner's Office at Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire SK9 5AF.

Yours sincerely on behalf of North East Lincolnshire Council

Feedback Officer
Resources Directorate

show quoted sections

Hump Balustrade left an annotation ()

You need to add some more very relevant data to your research Mr/s Skinner.

In 1998/99, Summons costs made up 0% of the total £40 charged to Council Tax payers in court cost to obtain a Liability Order through the Magistrates Court. Obviously the expenditure of sending a summons was considered negligible in comparison with that incurred afterwards in the run-up to and including the court case where they obtain the liability order.

You have to ask what administration procedures have changed so dramatically for the council to consider all the expenditure is incurred (£70) for what is effectively just sending a letter?

Dear PPD - FOI,

Will you please consider the 7th element to my request which I overlooked initially.

The relevant data is below:

(1999/2000) Cipfa stats:

Council Tax: Summons – £0 | Liability Order – £40

Business Rates: Summons – £0 | Liability Order – £40

Council Tax/Business Rates: 0% of total cost in respect of instituting complaint (summons)

(2000/01) Cipfa stats:

Council Tax: Summons – £10 | Liability Order – £32.50

Business Rates: Summons – £10 | Liability Order – £32.50

Council Tax/Business Rates: 24% of total cost in respect of instituting complaint (summons)

7. a) What changes in either the administration regime or the fee payable per entry on the complaint list to the Magistrates Court accounts for the change in composition of Council Tax summons from 0% of total cost in 1998/99 to 24% in 1999/2000?

b) What changes in either the administration regime or the fee payable per entry on the complaint list to the Magistrates Court accounts for the change in composition of Business Rates summons from 0% of total cost in 1998/99 to 24% in 1999/2000?

Yours sincerely,

R. Skinner

Dear PPD - FOI,

Due to a couple of errors surrounding dates I would like to submit this again.

Will you please consider the 7th element to my request which I overlooked initially.

The relevant data is below:

(1998/1999) Cipfa stats:
Council Tax: Summons – £0 | Liability Order – £40

Business Rates: Summons – £0 | Liability Order – £40

Council Tax/Business Rates: 0% of total cost in respect of instituting complaint (summons)

(1999/2000) Cipfa stats:
Council Tax: Summons – £10 | Liability Order – £32.50

Business Rates: Summons – £10 | Liability Order – £32.50

Council Tax/Business Rates: 24% of total cost in respect of instituting complaint (summons)

7. a) What changes in either the administration regime or the fee payable per entry on the complaint list to the Magistrates Court accounts for the change in composition of Council Tax summons from 0% of total cost in 1998/99 to 24% in 1999/2000?

b) What changes in either the administration regime or the fee payable per entry on the complaint list to the Magistrates Court accounts for the change in composition of Business Rates summons from 0% of total cost in 1998/99 to 24% in 1999/2000?

Yours sincerely,

R. Skinner

PPD - FOI, North East Lincolnshire Council

Dear Mr Skinner

 

With reference to your emails dated 20^th July and 21^st July 2014 in
respect of freedom of information request, reference 6079/1415. I can
confirm that this information has been reviewed as part of your internal
review, and you have been advised that North East Lincolnshire Council
does not hold the information you are requesting.  Therefore we will not
be entering into any further correspondence in respect of this matter.

If you remain dissatisfied with the Council’s handling of your request, or
the decision of the internal review you can request an independent review
by contacting the Information Commissioner's Office at Wycliffe House,
Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire SK9 5AF.

Yours sincerely on behalf of North East Lincolnshire Council

Feedback Officer

North East Lincolnshire Council

 

Confidentiality Note:  I am not authorised to bind my authority
contractually, nor to make representations or other statements which may
bind the authority in any way via electronic means.

 

Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this email?

 

Not protectively marked

 

show quoted sections

Knobby left an annotation ()

"With reference to your emails dated 20th July and 21st July 2014 in respect of freedom of information request, reference 6079/1415. I can confirm that this information has been reviewed as part of your internal review, and you have been advised that North East Lincolnshire Council does not hold the information you are requesting. Therefore we will not be entering into any further correspondence in respect of this matter."

Is this council real?

It didn't have the information until the 20th of July. How could it have reviewed it on 26 November 2013?