You are on page 1of 2

North East Lincolnshire Council

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

XY Xxxxxxx Yyyyy
Grimsby
North East Lincolnshire
AB12 3XY

26 January 2016
Dear Mr French
Re: Council tax Ref: 5501xxxxxx Formal Complaint (NEL/1172/1516)
Your response dated 19 January 2016 to my stage 1 complaint has not satisfactorily addressed my
issues and therefore I wish to escalate the matter to the final stage of the formal complaints
procedure.
Regarding my instructions that all payments I make in future are allocated to the current years
liability, Im assuming from the context of your response that you did not uphold this element, even
though your declaration is to the contrary. In any event, I disagree with the councils decision not to
consider these instructions acceptable but do not intend reiterating the points I have already made.
In that matter Im at a loss to know how your perception is that my representations conclude that the
debtor may only elect the account to which payment is allocated at the time it is made.
Turning to the councils 6 weeks delay in responding to my November correspondence. Though this
element has been upheld, my December payment, which I have expressly elected to be allocated to
my 2016-17 account, has been allocated to reduce this years liability. Given that I would never
have made this payment had the information received been sent sooner, then it is reasonable that the
council, which was at fault, should make amends by reallocating the payment or refunding it. The
council must be aware that I intended and intend making no payment to the 60 costs which are
subject to the High Court appeal from 2012/13 nor the fraudulently 60 costs obtained in respect of
the 2015-16 tax year.
Whilst you imply that the issue is a rarity, re falling below its high standards for responding, dont
forget that the response time for dealing with an almost identical issue in October 2014 was 4
weeks.
Liability order
Lastly there is no reason why the council should assert that the concerns raised about the Liability
order falls outside the scope of the complaints process.

The Local Government Act 2003 introduced into the Local Government Finance Act 1992 the
provision enabling the secretary of state to make regulations giving magistrates' courts powers to
quash a liability order if it was satisfied that one should not have been made. The explanatory notes
to the 2003 Act describes the only avenue available for this before the provision which is as
follows:
At present, this can only be achieved on application to a higher court. The cost involved is
unwarranted where there is no dispute about the facts.
I understand the above means a defendant may only appeal a decision to the High Court either by
way of a case stated or judicial review. As implied, both are unreasonable procedures for an
ordinary person to have to embark upon with it likely taking years (if ever) to succeed in having the
case brought before the court. There is no dispute either about the facts in this case.
The application was made because the council had misallocated monies to a sum subject to appeal
on the basis that it believed the case had been withdrawn and the sum no longer suspended. The
appeal had never been withdrawn and the simple fact is that the council could not have believed it
had by the incriminating evidence in the form of Exhibits which supported its witness statement. It
has the minimum duty to apply to the Magistrates to have the liability order quashed as it has been
brought to the councils attention that the application should never have been made.
Moreover, the same can be done with respect to the 2012-13 liability order because it has been
confirmed in the May 2015 High Court ruling, R (Nicolson) v Tottenham Magistrates [2015]
EWHC 1252 (Admin), that the liability order was obtained unlawfully.
It should be emphasised that the granting of costs without sufficient relevant information to support
them, did not become unlawful on account of the High Court judgment. Even before 6 May 2015, it
will have been required that the court had before it that information to enable reaching a proper
judicial determination. The position had merely been confirmed in the Tottenham Magistrates case.
Yours sincerely

X. Yyyyyy