Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
& Tribunals
Service
__
.t
GRIMSBY
North East Lincolnshire
DN320QJ
Julie Collins
Courts and Tribunals Manager for
Humber & South Yorkshire
Alison Watts
Clerk to the Justices
Doncaster Magistrates' Court
PO Box 49
College Road
DONCASTER
DN13HT
OX 707680 GRIMSBY 5
T 01472 592408 (Mike Draper)
T 01472 592406 (Chris Houlden/Allison Wade)
F 01472 320440
E mike.draper@hmcts.gsLgov.uk
E chris.houlden@hmcts.gsLgov.uk
E allison.wade@hmcts.gsLgov.uk
www.justice.gov.uk/about/hmcts/index.htm
6 November 2012
Dear Mr
;1.[. )~~
M L DRAPER
Deputy Justices' Clerk
(name of defendant)]
[the prosecutor]
for the court to state a case for the opinion of the High Court on an appeal on a question of
law or jurisdiction.
Use this form ONLY for an application to the court to state a case for the opinion of the High Court on a
question of law or jurisdiction, under Criminal Procedure Rule 64.2. There are different forms for appealing
from a magistrates court to the Crown Court under Criminal Procedure Rules Part 63, or from the Crown Court
to the Court of Appeal under Criminal Procedure Rules Part 68.
1. Complete the boxes above and give the details required in the boxes below. If you use an
1
electronic version of this form, the boxes will expand . If you use a paper version and need more space, you
may attach extra sheets.
2. Sign and date the completed form.
3. Send a copy of the completed form to:
(a) the court, and
(b) each other party to the case.
You must send this form so as to reach the recipients not more than 21 days after the decision about which
you want to appeal to the High Court. If that decision was by a magistrates court, the court has no power
to extend that time limit.
A party who wants to make representations about this application must serve those representations under
Criminal Procedure Rule 64.2(3) not more than 14 days after service of this application.
1) Decision under appeal. Give brief details of the decision about which you want to appeal to the High
Court (including the date of that decision).
The Magistrates sitting at the Grimsby Magistrates Court on the 2nd November 2012 granted a liability order,
brought about by North East Lincolnshire Council. The matter concerned Council Tax and the liability order was
made for a proportion (60) of the Councils 70 summons costs. The level of costs were disputed at the
hearing as unreasonable.
2) Question(s) for the High Court. What question(s) of law or jurisdiction do you want the court to state
for the opinion of the High Court?
The questions focus on two principle points of law with regards regulation 34 of the Council Tax regulations (SI
1992/613).
Those points being, whether
i)
costs being disputed as unreasonable should have been awarded by the court without evidence
from the council to support them.
ii)
costs specifically incurred by the council for obtaining the liability order should have been charged
at the summons issuing stage.
3) Grounds of appeal. Explain briefly why you think the decision against which you want to appeal was
wrong, and how that decision depended on the question(s) specified in box 2 above.
i) The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 provide at regulation 34 for a billing
authority to recover its reasonably incurred costs in connection with liability order applications. The costs were
disputed on the grounds that hundreds of thousands of pounds awarded would not be reasonable in respect of
a single bulk liability order, especially considering the process is largely automated. Neither can costs be
quantified in advance as they are split between however many defendants are summonsed to the court.
The councils representative offered no evidence to support its costs claim and stated that the council had
never been required to do so. Consequently, the authority could not justify their incurred expenditure.
General costs were offered verbally by the prosecuting council, including Council Tax collection and recovery,
IT systems, employment of staff and HMCTS for the use of their facilities. It was argued costs were reasonable
by commenting that they were lower than national averages for unitary authorities.
It does not specify in SI 1992/613 that defendants should subsidy the Council tax department with imposed
charges; only compensate reasonable costs incurred in connection with obtaining the liability order.
There is no provision in the legislation for costs to provide a source of revenue, nor to act as a deterrent and
incentivise payment (encourage behaviour). These are generally advantages highlighted in costs reviews
(where documented).
For example NELCs April 2001 costs review:
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.
6. If the proposal is accepted, then based on the number of Summonses issued and Liability Orders
obtained in the current year, an extra 38,000 of additional cost income would be generated bringing
the total to approximately 390,000.
ii) The regulation further provides for costs to be charged in proportion with the level of recovery work done,
i.e., theres a distinction made between the summons and liability order stage of recovery and consequently
penalties should be incurred incrementally.
If overall costs had been justified, the following suggests that imposing all these at the summons issuing stage
would not be in accordance with regulation 34 to SI 1992/613.
Before a review in April 2011, summons and liability order costs were 56% and 44% of total recovery costs
respectively, which would make costs after the review (if justified) only 39 for the summons, not the 70
they're currently charging.
To demonstrate this further; 22% of costs made up the summons charge in 2001. Based on the then costs ratio
and todays figures, the summons should be around 15, of the overall 70 costs.
This highlights both charges have been arbitrarily split to advantage maximum costs income. It has been done
progressively over a period of time until the present situation where all costs are loaded to the summons.
An amendment (SI 2011/528 (W 73) which came into force on 1st April 2011 made provisions for 70 to be the
maximum costs which could be charged for obtaining a Liability Order. It further specified that this was a total
maximum, including those of instituting the application. This was apparently only in respect of Welsh
authorities, but nevertheless amending the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992, as
are relevant to English councils.
This maximum equals the amount NELC currently charge for issuing a summons. Statistics show, in certain
circumstances, Welsh authorities issue annually a very small fraction of NELCs total. This maximum charge
would be reasonable only for those Welsh authorities issuing relatively low numbers of summonses, the logic
being that costs are split between fewer defendants. This should be an indication that if English regulations
were ever subject to the same amendment, NELC would have no reasonable grounds to charge up to the
maximum permissible.
Signed2:
Date:
If you use an electronic version of this form, you may instead authenticate it electronically (e.g. by sending it from an
email address recognisable to the recipient). See Criminal Procedure Rules, rule 5.3.
HM Courts
& Tribunals
Service
GRIMSBY
North East Lincolnshire
DN320QJ
Julie Collins
Courts and Tribunals Manager for
Humber & South Yorkshire
Alison Watts
Clerk to the Justices
Doncaster Magistrates' Court
PO Box 49
College Road
DONCASTER
DN13HT
OX 707680 GRIMSBY 5
22 November 2012
M L DRAPER
Deputy Justices' Clerk
Mrs A Watts
Justices' Clerk for Humber & South Yorkshire
Doncaster Magistrates' Court
PO Box 49
The Law Courts
College Road
DONCASTER DN1 3HT
DX 742840 (Doncaster 20)
T: 01302 366711
F: 01302 327906
E: celine.allerton@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
karen.crocken@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
24 July 2013
Mr
Grimsby
North East Lincolnshire
Dear Mr
Re: North East Lincolnshire Council V
Grimsby and Cleethorpes Magistrates' Court - 2 November 2012
Application to State a Case
I refer to your request for the Justices to state a case for the opinion of the High Court in respect of the
above-mentioned proceedings.
Enclosed herewith is the draft case that has been prepared, together with a statement of the delay for
production of same.
May I respectfully draw to your attention that in accordance with rule 77 (2) of the Magistrates' Courts
Rules 1981 you have 21 days from receipt of the draft case to submit any written representations that you
may have upon its content.
I shall be grateful if you kindly acknowledge receipt of this correspondence.
Yours sincerely
Mrs A Watts
Justices' Clerk
Enc
Respondent
CASE
5. It was contended by the respondent that:a) The level of costs sought in the proceedings was an amount
that had previously been advised by the respondent to the court
that would be sought by the respondent in each case in
proceedings to recover unpaid council tax. This amount had been
claimed in all cases before the court since that notification.
b) The sum requested was not a means to raise additional revenue
for the respondent but a reflection of the broad average costs of
bringing any individual case for unpaid council tax before the court.
7. We were of the following opinion:a) We recognise that in all cases where costs are claimed we
always have a discretion as to whether to order them, and if so, in
what sum. Although the appellant admitted the matter of complaint
and costs would therefore normally follow the event, the fact that
the respondent asked for the normal amount of amount of costs in
this case did not prevent us from reducing the amount or refusing
to make an order for costs at all.
3
QUESTION
9. The question for the opinion of the High Court is:Were we entitled in the circumstances of this case to order
payment of the full amount of the costs requested by the
respondent and make the liability order which followed as a
consequence thereof?
Mr J A O'Nions JP
Mr T A Shepherdson JP
Justices' Clerk
for and on behalf of the Justices adjudicating.
It was not possible to comply with rule 77(1) of the Magistrates' Courts Rules 1981
for the following reasons:
1.
2.
The matter was escalated to the Justices' Clerk. This caused a delay as
the Justices' Clerk had then to review the case papers and discuss the
matter with the Justices to seek their views on whether it was it would be
appropriate to state a case or to refuse to state a case on the grounds
that the application was frivolous. The Justices decided that they would
state a case but required a recognizance from Mr
before doing so.
3.
4.
On 29 April 2013 Mr
corresponded with the court indicating
concern with the request for a recognizance and asking for a certificate of
refusal to state a case, and that if the latter were declined, that he would
seek permission for a Judicial Review.
5.
On June 2013 Mr
made an application to the Administrative Court
for permission to seek a Judicial Review of the court not to supply him
with the draft case and to seek a mandatory order that the Justices state a
case.
6.
Justices' Clerk
Page 1 of 1
From:
To:
Cc:
Sent:
Subject:
"
"<
@btopenworld.com>
<Alison.Watts@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk>
"Crocken, Karen" <karen.crocken@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk>
30 July 2013 21:53
Acknowledgement of draft Case Stated (re, North East Lincolnshire Council)
Yours sincerely
.
From:
To:
Cc:
Sent:
Attach:
Subject:
"
"<
@btopenworld.com>
<Alison.Watts@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk>
"Crocken, Karen" <karen.crocken@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk>
19 August 2013 22:39
Doncaster CrimPR 64.3(6) 19 August 2013.pdf; Case stated Draft representation.pdf
Representations on Draft Case - Rule 77 (2)
Yours sincerely
.
From:
To:
Sent:
Attach:
Subject:
"
"<
@btopenworld.com>
<eve.richardson-smith@nelincs.gov.uk>
19 August 2013 22:45
Case stated Draft representation.pdf; NELC CrimPR 64.3(6) 19 August 2013.pdf
Representations on Draft Case - CrimPR 64.3 (6)
Dear Ms Richardson
Yours sincerely
.
06/09/2016
Respondent
CASE
5. It was contended by the respondent that:a) The level of costs sought in the proceedings was an amount
that had previously been advised by the respondent to the court
that would be sought by the respondent in each case in
proceedings to recover unpaid council tax. This amount had been
claimed in all cases before the court since that notification.
b) The sum requested was not a means to raise additional revenue
for the respondent but a reflection of the broad average costs of
bringing any individual case for unpaid council tax before the court.
6. We were not referred to any case authority.
Regina v Brentford Justices ex parte Catlin [1975] QB
455 was referred to in an item of evidence disputing the
level of expenditure attributed to monitoring and control.
It was argued that over a five year period, a total 3,528
Liability Orders had been issued for initial debt of 50 or
less despite being policy for the council to pass accounts
to enforcement for amounts over 50. This along with
summonses containing incorrect and out of date
information issued on 3,361 accounts for a hearing of 2
June 2011 pointed to neither the Magistrates court nor
more crucially the local authority incurring costs in
respect of monitoring liability order applications.
...before a summons or warrant is issued the
information must be laid before a magistrate and
he must go through the judicial exercise of deciding
whether a summons or warrant ought to be issued
or not. If a magistrate authorises the issue of a
summons without having applied his mind to the
information then he is guilty of dereliction of
duty...
7. We were of the following opinion:a) We recognise that in all cases where costs are claimed we
always have a discretion as to whether to order them, and if so, in
what sum. Although the appellant admitted the matter of complaint
and costs would therefore normally follow the event, the fact that
the respondent asked for the normal amount of amount of costs in
this case did not prevent us from reducing the amount or refusing
to make an order for costs at all.
10
QUESTION
9. The question for the opinion of the High Court is:Were we entitled in the circumstances of this case to order
payment of the full amount of the costs requested by the
respondent and make the liability order which followed as a
consequence thereof?
Mr J A O'Nions JP
Mr T A Shepherdson JP
Justices' Clerk
for and on behalf of the Justices adjudicating.
13
Grimsby
North East Lincolnshire
19 August 2013
In accordance with Rule 77 (2) of the Magistrates' Courts Rules 1981, there is enclosed,
representations made on the content of the draft case.
May I respectfully draw to your attention that in accordance with rule 78 of the Magistrates' Courts
Rules 1981 you have within 21 days after the latest day on which representations may be made
under rule 77 to state and sign the case.
Yours sincerely
Grimsby
North East Lincolnshire
19 August 2013
Dear Ms Richardson
Re: North East Lincolnshire Council V
Grimsby and Cleethorpes Magistrates' Court - 2 November
2012 Application to State a Case
In accordance with Criminal Procedure Rules Part 64.3 (6), there is enclosed, representations
made on the content of the draft case.
Yours sincerely
Page 1 of 1
From:
To:
Cc:
Sent:
Attach:
Subject:
"
"<
@btopenworld.com>
<Alison.Watts@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk>
<eve.richardson-smith@nelincs.gov.uk>; "Crocken, Karen" <karen.crocken@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk>;
"Raven, Mike (Gov Connect)" <Mike.Raven@Nelincs.gcsx.gov.uk>
10 January 2014 16:09
Doncaster CrimPR 64.3(6) 10 January 2014.pdf
Re: Representations on Draft Case - CrimPR 64.3 (6)
Yours sincerely
.
07/09/2016
Grimsby
North East Lincolnshire
10 January 2014
I refer to the draft case received 30 July 2013 and the 21 day time limit from receipt of the draft
case to submit any written representations upon its content.
May I bring it to your attention that on 19 August 2013, representations were served together with
letter advising the Court it had (from the latest day on which representations may be made) 21
days to state and sign the case in accordance with rule 78 of the Magistrates' Courts Rules 1981.
Accordingly, the final signed case was expected on or before 10 September 2013 (overrun by 4
months). I would therefore like to know why the justices have decided against complying with the
relevant rules.
Yours sincerely
Page 1 of 1
From:
To:
Cc:
Sent:
Attach:
Subject:
"
"<
@btopenworld.com>
<Alison.Watts@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk>
<eve.richardson-smith@nelincs.gov.uk>; "Crocken, Karen" <karen.crocken@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk>;
"Raven, Mike (Gov Connect)" <Mike.Raven@Nelincs.gcsx.gov.uk>
13 February 2014 17:18
Recognizance 13 February 2014.pdf
Case Stated - Recognizance (re, North East Lincolnshire Council)
Yours sincerely
.
07/09/2016
Grimsby
North East Lincolnshire
13 February 2014
Further to there being no response to my letter of 10.1.14, I am left not knowing why the justices
did not state the case in accordance with rule 78 of the Magistrates' Courts Rules 1981.
It must be assumed that the court only gave an undertaking to serve the draft case, re
acknowledgement of service (Judicial Review 8.7.13) and not intended delivering the case stated
until recognizance had been agreed.
As a consequence of the judicial review claim, I understand that despite a sum (500) being
stated in your letter (24.1.13), the appropriateness and/or the amount may be considered on
agreeing recognizance. It would appear that if this appeal is to be progressed it will be conditional
on entering into recognizance. I therefore ask that arrangements are made for this to take place
and await your response.
Yours sincerely
Page 1 of 1
From:
To:
Cc:
Sent:
Attach:
Subject:
"
"<
@btopenworld.com>
<Alison.Watts@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk>
<eve.richardson-smith@nelincs.gov.uk>; "Crocken, Karen" <karen.crocken@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk>;
"Raven, Mike (Gov Connect)" <Mike.Raven@Nelincs.gcsx.gov.uk>
22 April 2014 14:48
Cert - refusal to state case 22 April 2014.pdf
Re: Certificate of Refusal to state a case - s.111(5) MCA 1980 (re, North East Lincolnshire
Council)
Yours sincerely
07/09/2016
Grimsby
North East Lincolnshire
22 April 2014
Thank you for your email of 6 March 2014 in which you stated:
I will have written communication with you either later today or first thing tomorrow
setting out the position with your case and advising you on next steps.
I did not receive the aforementioned communication, neither have subsequent calls to your office
made 19 and 28 March prompted a response. The net result being that the case, for which the
Magistrates owe a legal duty to state for the opinion of the High Court, has not been stated.
As no contact has been made regarding my 13 February 2014 letter to agree recognizance and
every attempt to proceed with the appeal has drawn a blank, it appears the court is refusing to
state the case.
Pursuant to section 111(5) of the MCA 1980, a magistrate can refuse to state a case, but must
consider the application 'frivolous'. The meaning of the term was considered by the Civil Division of
the Court of Appeal in (R v Mildenhall Magistrates' Court, ex p Forest District Council). The then
Lord Chief Justice in considering the meaning of 'frivolous' was of the view that in the context, the
Court should consider the application to be futile, misconceived, hopeless or academic. He went on
to say that such a conclusion was not one to which the justices can properly come simply because
they consider their decision to be right or immune from challenge.
Presuming the application is not considered 'frivolous' (a draft has been produced) there is no
obvious reason why the court has not stated the case as legally required. However, as the court
may only refuse on these grounds then I require a certificate stating that the application has been
refused (section 111(5) MCA 1980) setting out the reasons why, so I may under section 111(6)
seek a second mandatory order from the Administrative Court requiring the case to be stated.
Yours sincerely