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 Over2you. I wonder if it might have been better for the IRRV to wait and see what Grant Thornton says in their report, following their investigation.
I do hope that the Council will cease attempting to defend the indefensible (the Judge's words, not mine) and recognise their error. I don't think they're led or directed adequately.
-
Permalink Reply by Over2you on
-
I wonder if it might have been better for the IRRV to wait and see what Grant Thornton says in their report, following their investigation.
That would have made more sense. However, on that note I thought this spread sheet might be worth looking at (if not already seen on whatdotheyknow).
After a brief look, there is something obvious suggesting that the majority of the Council's excessive expenditure should be wiped off what it can lawfully recharge to Haringey's residents in respect of court costs.
Under the questionnaire's 4(d) figures, data is given relating to the number of 'Special arrangements' entered into. Obviously there's a cost to the council in administration time for engaging with the taxpayer, setting up payment plans and consequently monitoring them thereafter. Both are underlined as below:
Special arrangements pre liability order
Special arrangements post liability order
Interestingly there are none entered into before the liability order is granted whilst after the authority has obtained the order, the special arrangements entered into totals 2,794. The relevant Statutory Instrument allows only expenditure incurred in connection with the liability order application and categorically does not permit the council to recharge costs to the taxpayer after that point.
What surprised me was that over £0.25 million of taxpayer's money is simply handed to Banks in credit card handling charges (question 6(d)) for allowing council taxpayer to pay by that method.
-
-
You'd have thought the council's auditor would have by now come to some conclusion.
P.S.
This wouldn't be the same Cllr Claire Kober (Haringey's council leader) who is the chair of the Local Government Association's resources board, would it?
As quoted in this article: "Two million bailiff calls as councils brutalise poor"
-
Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on
-
I saw Rev Paul Nicolson today who said he'd not yet had the report from Grant Thornton, the Council's Auditors. He hopes to hear soon.
We met with another member of a small group of volunteers who've been helping to make a short zero-budget video to be posted on Vimeo/YouTube, about the successful campaigns by Taxpayers Against Poverty (TAP) to bring these issues into the Courts. And into the public arena.
As well as discussing final tweaks to the video, we also heard Paul's views - hot and strong - about the latest (1 September) blog on the TAP site. It's headed Inequality is Literally a Killing Field.
The article you link to, Over2you, quotes Cllr Claire Kober claiming that "... councils have tried to take a sympathetic and constructive approach to debtors".
In my personal view, after the Supreme Court case which Haringey lost, and then the High Court hearing on Court costs, where Haringey's case was described by the judge as "indefensible", there was an obvious course of action for a sensible Council Leadership.
They should and could have invited TAP to meet councillors. And asked for suggestions for small practical steps which might improve the system for Haringey people in poverty. Trying to make it less cruel. Less stupidly and brutally pushing more people into ill health, stress, hunger, debt, and sometimes breakdown and homelessness.
Rev Paul Nicolson doesn't do personal attacks. His way is to explain and illustrate and shout about the facts.
Anyone who'd like to know when the video is finished and posted online is welcome to email me. alan.stanton@virgin.net
-
-
I note the reported claim of the Council Leader, that councils have tried to take a sympathetic and constructive approach to debtors.
One might expect a sympathetic approach would end with something like "I hope this information is helpful".
A case of which I know, did just that. However, it jarred with what immediately preceded it:
Our records show that the outstanding balance on your account of £ XX had been referred to the YY enforcement agents.
Any arrangement for payment should be made with them. Please contact YY at ZZ quoting your account reference number.
I trust this information is helpful.
(Anonymised extract from email)
I don't believe this was intended as sarcasm. However, I also don't think it suggests that the Local Authority wears its heart on its sleeve.
CDC
Haringey Councillor
Liberal Democrat Party
-
-
That's a bit over-the-top, Clive.
The Dear Leader does not spend her time crafting sarcastic letters about visits by Council bailiffs. For one thing I imagine she has far too many important lunches to attend with the Mayor, Spurs, starchitects, property developers etc etc.
Because you've often met and heard Paul Nicolson speak - and were in Court for the last case - you'll know that he's drawn attention to the Local Government Association's warnings about Councils' dire problems when they are expected to tax the benefits of the poorest residents. It's the Poll Tax reborn.
-
-
Alan. I don't blame the member of staff who wrote it, who is simply obeying directions. Despite what the Council Leader claims, it does not appear that in at least this case, the Council is taking a sympathetic approach to debtors. I'm obviously not going to go into the details of the case, but try to imagine yourself on the receiving end of this communication. It took he intervention of a Councillor to sort it out.
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
