Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Judgement day … on Magistrates and LBH
THIS MORNING, with other members of the public, I attended the High Court for the Hearing of The Queen on the application of Nicolson v Tottenham Magistrates (CO/976/2014).
The case concerns the £125 charge that – via the Magistrate's Court – the Council levies on top of unpaid Council Tax. This often impacts those who are least able to pay. In any event, the charge is supposed to reflect the Council's direct and reasonable costs (only).
It's not supposed to be (in accounting terminology) a profit centre. Though I did not hear it today, this could also be expressed such that, the charge ought to do no more than to reflect the Council's marginal costs (i.e. the extra, or incremental costs), rather than somehow amortising some of the fixed costs and ongoing overheads of a whole department.
One fellow member of the public – whose knowledge of the mechanising of the process is much better than mine – suggested that the actual, direct, costs could be as little as 83p/claim (more information, if and when it comes to hand).
The Judicial Review was brought by the Rev. Paul Nicolson and was heard in Court 3 of the Royal Courts of Justice before Mrs Justice Andrews.
Reverend Nicolson had asked for a breakdown of the £125 charge.
In respect of an 'explanation' eventually offered, the Judge used the word (amongst other pithy description), waffle.
A distinction is drawn between costs reasonably incurred and incurring reasonable costs (or, kind-of-cost vs. level-of-cost). There was a claim that there had been an explanatory schedule on paper back in 2010 ... but that could not now be found.
At one point, the Judge suggested that Magistrates were the only thing that stood in the way of the Council charging whatever it liked.
Although Justice Andrews reserved judgement, she expects to be able to deliver it next week. The Court's decision could have wide ramifications.
More about the case here
and here:
Tags for Forum Posts: Council, Court, High, JR, Judicial Review, Magistrates, charge, tax, £125
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on
-
Thanks for the update Alan. This is likely to have national-, or at least England-wide implications.
-
Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on
-
Though if the judgement goes against Haringey, there is no guarantee it will be welcomed and promptly acted on by the Koberites. They now have a history of ignoring adverse Court judgements and highly critical comments from judges.
-
-
I'VE JUST had a call from Paul Nicolson following Judgement at the High Court this morning.
As expected, he has won the case and won thoroughly, with his costs awarded.
(For the avoidance of doubt, Reverend Nicolson is not aligned to any political party.)
I, and I'm sure others, congratulate him in his battle on behalf of some of the least well-off residents of Haringey.
Hopefully, this judgement will lead to the curtailing of what I think of as the Council's Wonga fee, i.e. driving some residents deeper into debt. I'm pressed for time at the moment and will simply put up a link to:
Clive Carter
Councillor
Liberal Democrat Party
-
-
I'VE CONVERTED the Judgement web page into a PDF file that may be conveniently downloaded.
The costs awarded are substantial (and not yet settled with LBH).
This could have been avoided had the Council co-operated earlier and had decided not to defend the case.
Due to the feebleness of their case, the Council was always likely to lose.
The judge said that "[Haringey's barrister's] instructions were to try to defend the indefensible".
(my emphasis)
- Attachments:
![Nicolson, R (on the application of) v Tottenham Magistrates & Anor [2015] EWHC 1252 (Admin) (06 May 2015).pdf](https://static.ning.com/socialnetworkmain/widgets/forum/gfx/fileicons/pdf.gif?xn_version=539796025)
-
-
Thanks again, Clive for taking the trouble to keep people informed by posting the judgement.
Mrs Justice Andrews' judgement in this case is relatively short - just over ten pages - and well worth reading.
Not least by Haringey's councillors. I hope at least a few of them reflect on possible lessons to be learned and what now needs to happen. I also hope that they will insist on a written briefing on the case from the Council's legal staff. Which goes further than the explanation that the problem was caused by a missing spreadsheet sent to the Magistrates Court by someone who then left the Council's employment.
-
-
P.S.
I've just seen the report in the Tottenham & Wood Green Journal which quotes a 'Haringey Council spokesman' saying the Council accepted the court’s decision “as magistrates did not have the relevant information before them”.
However the spokesman added: “We welcome that the judge accepted our broad approach to calculating costs to cover legal proceedings. We will now consider this ruling in greater detail”.
Which on my reading appears to be spin - for precisely the reasons Clive Carter has given. I suggest you make up your own mind by reading the judgement and especially the numbered paragraphs 57 - 60.
As Clive mentioned, a key phrase used by the judge was that Haringey's barrister had instructions "to try to defend the indefensible". It appears that Haringey's spokesperson was trying to continue along the same line. To find something positive to say - however flimsy - even though Haringey lost the legal argument and had costs awarded against them.
Don't these "spokespeople" - not just for the Council but indirectly for us too - realise the corrosive effect of this? That every time it happens, people's trust and confidence in our council takes yet another hit? We have a High Court judge setting out her view. What is wrong with trying to give a balanced and accurate summary? What's wrong with speaking the truth?
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Anderson on
-
I'm imagining that as this case has the potential to set a precedent for legal costs by local authorities across England that Haringey may consider an appeal - backed by other Local Authorities? Anyone get any wind of that yet?
Congratulations to Rev Nicholson and his supporters for their fight on this. It is absolutely right claims for costs should be completely transparent and justifiable, which in this case they most blantently were not.
-
-
In my reading of the judgement, Michael, Haringey and other English local authorities can claim their reasonably incurred legal costs in Council tax cases by following the steps set out by the judge.
Though not - as Haringey has done - publicly shaming themselves by treating the process as simply administrative. But failing to follow a basic administrative practice: safeguarding key documents. Then making it worse still by wasting public money in trying to "defend the indefensible" in the courts.
The Independent newspaper (national) has this as a lead story today. On their website the heading is: Retired vicar who refused to pay council tax as matter of principle....
The story gives some background detail about Rev Paul Nicolson himself and his reasons for this campaign. It quotes him saying that the ruling is: "... game, set and match to the poor.” Adding: “I'm not a socialist. I'm a Christian. All I do is state the facts on poverty”.
At the tail end of the story the paper repeats the statement by "our" Council's spokesman spinning the judgement by saying: "... the judge accepted our broad approach to calculating costs to cover legal proceedings".
Having written my previous comments late last night and reread parts of the judgement this morning, I find it even less believable that someone should say this. Hard to believe that they could reach this conclusion. Harder to understand why they think it serves Haringey's interests to voice this view publicly.
"Sure, it was a nasty foul and we accept that a player was sent off. But the referee agreed with our team's broad approach to the ball."
Do we want our Council to be a laughing stock?
-
-
Michael, I sat through the whole Hearing. LBH's was a particularly feeble case.
While it is true that the judgement is likely to set a precedent for legal costs by local authorities, it does not follow that they would consider appealing. There would need to be some basis for Appeal.
The case was a disgrace. The judge said that LBH's barrister's instructions were to try to defend the indefensible. LBH's claim of a lost email beggars belief. Due to a lack of wisdom and oversight, LBH has wasted a considerable sum in pursuit of the indefensible. They are arguing over costs awarded against them.
I would be astonished were there an Appeal the judgement against the defence of the indefensible, because they would likely lose again. Occasionally, even Haringey Council knows when to stop wasting money.
I fear that Alan is right and the Council will simply do its best to ignore the High Court ruling, as they did in the case of AB & CD versus Haringey Children's Services.
-
-
The case was a disgrace. And as Clive suggests, only the latest in several legal cases where Haringey has been sharply criticised by judges.
For people who haven't spotted it before, Rev Paul Nicolson's organisation - Taxpayers Against Poverty (TAP) - also made a successful challenge to Haringey in the Supreme Court. That was another example when Haringey's "comms" (propaganda) staff tried to downplay the legal defeat by saying the Council had won in the lower courts. Completely true; but irrelevant. Perhaps they missed the clue in the word "Supreme"?
I do wonder if and when we will ever see a smidgeon of contrition and humility from the leadership of Hubris Council.
In my view, people respect politicians more if they are able to say something like: "We got this wrong. Now we're fixing it. We've listened and learned and are determined to listen better and do better."
Rev Paul Nicolson has invited people to join Taxpayers Against Poverty and to make a donation. Details here.
-
-
IN attempting to "defend the indefensible", our strapped-for-cash Council incurred their own costs (obviously), but were also at high risk of having costs awarded against them, due to the futility of their hopeless case.
No wiser counsel prevailed. No wisdom, no maturity. Only the conviction that we never apologise; we never admit mistake; we are never wrong. And, we will back our (flawed) position with public funds (it's easy to spend other people's money, including monies that might be spent on directly assisting the poorest).
In due course, costs were awarded against Haringey. The position now is that £33,000 of costs have been applied for and the Council is quibbling.
-
Permalink Reply by EMC2 on
-
Thanks Clive, well done Reverend Nicolson - and our independent judiciary.
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
