North East Lincolnshire Council Finance Department Civic Offices Knoll Street Cleethorpes North East Lincolnshire DN35 8LN

15/03/14

Dear Sir/Madam

Re: Council tax Ref: 550xxxxxxx Formal Complaint

The following is quoted from my 2014/2015 Council Tax demand.

MEMORANDUM NOTE YOUR INSTALMENTS FOR 2014/15 DO NOT INCLUDE YOUR 2013/14 ACCOUNT BALANCE AS AT 20-FEB-2014 YOUR 2013/14 COUNCIL TAX ACCOUNT BALANCE IS 60.00 60.00 OF THE TOTAL IS SUBJECT TO COURT PROCEEDINGS

The 60.00 relates as far as Im aware to 60 court summons costs. I consider the Liability Order to enforce this sum was obtained fraudulently by North East Lincolnshire Council (NELC), and therefore require it be removed from my account.

Justifying my allegations of NELCs fraudulent actions:

Evidence that NELC obtained the Liability Order fraudulently lies in a calculation it produced to support its claim that the standard costs sought in respect of instituting the Summons was no more than it reasonably incurs (see Summons Cost Calculation 2012 /13), NELCs website, direct link:

http://www.nelincs.gov.uk/GetAsset.aspx?id=fAAxADYAMgA4ADAAfAB8AFQAcgB1AGUAfAB8ADAAfAA1

It is clear from the calculation that NELC inappropriately raises revenue through Magistrates Court Summons costs to account for large parts of its annual budget for running the Council Tax department. Please note that if an individual were to bring a case (for example against a Local Authority) and ask the bench to award his costs, the Magistrates would dismiss any that weren't directly related to the costs of preparing the case.

Around three quarters of a million pounds a year (set to rise by nearly 70%) is being claimed for a process automatically controlled in accordance with the Council Tax software settings. The system (NOT salaried employees) compiles particulars of all account holders requiring issue of a summons from which the complaint list is generated.

There is no lawful provision that permits NELC to impose costs for anything other than to cover

reasonably incurred expenditure. No costs therefore can be claimed in respect of agreeing, setting-up or monitoring payment arrangements, telephone communications or correspondence entered into outside those automatically triggered by parameters set in the automated Council Tax system.

The fee payable per entry on the complaint list to the Magistrates Court accounts for 3. This element of the summons costs has been constant since the provision of the Magistrates' Courts Fees Order 2005, which came into force on 10 January 2006; therefore the overnight increase in summons costs in 2011 of 120% can not be justified. Owing to a system which is automated, it is not reasonable that costs could exceed what is paid to HMCTS in fees plus a token amount in respect of postage, stationary and printing. Such an amount would be rendered even more insignificant due to economies of scale.

Example One:

It is apparent that North East Lincolnshire Council has a parameter set in its council tax system of a sum below which an alleged debtor will not theoretically be summonsed. If parameters are set in its Council Tax system, it must make any claim bogus to justify allocating 143,215 of its budget to "Control & Monitoring" (see Summons Cost Calculation 2012 /13).

Example Two:

The absence of human involvement is highlighted in a letter to the Councils Local Taxation & Benefits Shared Service Manager dated 22 April 2013 (see Annex A).

Concerns were raised about a computer generated letter threatening 70 summons costs, instalment facility withdrawal and demand for immediate payment for the entire Council Tax liability if payment was not made in accordance with the demands.

This demonstrated that recovery is triggered independently of salaried employees and any element of "Control & Monitoring" is solely attributed to how the system is programmed to allocate outstanding payments and to which years account they are automatically posted. The fact that an

error in the system went undetected backs-up the assertion that nobody monitors the recovery process for which NELC claims expenditure and raises costs in respect of instituting Summonses.

Inadequate monitoring to ensure there is no surplus income from costs

Costs have only ever increased, suggesting that measures have never been taken that would improve efficiency and reduce incurred expenditure. This seems unlikely given the increasing trend for councils to share resources, outsource services and exploit the latest technology.

More relevantly however, it would suggest that volumes of bulk applications have remained constant. For example, if volumes increased significantly, it would be reasonable to expect lower costs due to economies of scale. The standard costs sought, that is, each defendants share of the total, would require adjusting to ensure no profit was made. However, costs raised by the billing authority increased by 67% in respect of figures obtained in 2013 compared with the same period in 2012. No adjustment was made to the standard costs sought, and the court continued to award costs which were applied for.

Changes to the benefit system are the likely cause for the significant increase in numbers unable to meet council tax payments. Claimants, who before the reforms, where exempt from paying any council tax must now pay 8.5% of their bill because of reduced funding. Incomes for these people must therefore have fallen below levels which the government once deemed was a minimum amount needed to live on frugally. Whatever is behind the soaring numbers, costs raised have escalated as NELC has opted to seek court orders to enforce payment in those cases.

Costs raised for the months May to August in 2012 (before the reforms) was 333,480, whilst for the same months subsequent to the reforms the figure increased by around 67% to 556,220.

Individual costs raised under regulation 34(5) of S.I 1992/613 derive from the billing authoritys aggregate, split between however many defendants appear on the complaint list. Due process would require the council itemise the time and effort expended on each element of the case after which Magistrates would need to use discretion in awarding the appropriate costs. This would essentially take into account the number of defendants incurring costs. However, it is evident that NELC, on behalf of the Magistrates court is permitted to determine its own costs (see Annexes B and C).

The majority of costs currently claimed by the council would if due process was followed be identified as inappropriate profit, especially when applications exceed certain levels as has been

seen since the benefit changes. With this considered, and discounting costs which would be incurred regardless of the applications being made, then only those specific to the claim would be awarded.

The desired outcome of this complaint

As set out at the beginning of this complaint I require the 60 court summons costs, which I consider to be fraudulent, be removed from my account.

I also require NELC propose a provisional sum as compensation for damages for refusing to resolve this matter which has consequently required appeals in the High Court, both Judicial Review and by way of case stated.

A proposed sum should reflect the amount of time researching relevant litigation procedures in pursuing this matter in the High Court and a final settlement left open to allow for damages in respect of the unquantifiable time left until this matter has finally concluded.

Yours sincerely

ANNEX A

Letter to the NELCs Local Taxation & Benefits Shared Service Manager

22 April 2013

A computer generated letter received on 19/04/13 threatens summons costs of 70, instalment

facility withdrawal and demand for immediate payment for the entire Council Tax liability if

payment is not made in accordance with the request.

I can confirm already making payment in respect of April's instalment and believe the council has

made a mistake.

I presume because disputed costs have been carried forward to this year's account and were not

included in my payment, the council tax system has "soft allocated" funds, therefore leaving an overdue amount on this year's account. This, if not reversed, will inevitably involve unnecessary

legal action.

Though outlining the probable cause, I suspect the error is not straightforward. The council's

software appears unable to function correctly in circumstances where a balance has been carried

forward from a previous year.

The discrepancy surrounds the sum of the total balance becoming payable. The stated sum

excludes an amount equal to the costs carried forward, but is what makes up the overdue amount.

The system is in effect demanding last year's costs (an unrelated matter) as an overdue amount

from this year's council tax but simultaneously having no account for it in the total balance. It

could be then, that by raising this, a serious programming error in the Council Tax software has

been identified which I trust will be investigated on resolving my own issues.

I doubt this has been a deliberate act for the purpose of generating extra summons revenue, but if

it transpires it has been engineered to cause default, I will not hesitate escalating this to the Local

Government Ombudsman. In the more likely case this glitch has occurred as a consequence of its

Council Tax software package, I request the misallocated funds are reallocated to this year's

account thereby offsetting my 2012-13 liability. If the department deems this to be outside its

powers, I ask that the judgment of "Peter v Anderson" is sought.

This does raise another important point in regards the incurred summons cost claimed by the

authority. It is questionable how nearly a million pounds each year can be incurred in a largely

automated process. The absence of human involvement is evident in the authority's apparent

confidence that its council tax system can be depended on to function correctly and progress to

recovery without any monitoring, as the erroneous notice highlights.

ANNEX B

ANNEX C