complaint handling and enquiries team - 102 petty france

7/25/2019 Complaint Handling and Enquiries Team - 102 Petty France

1/135

Complaints, Correspondence and Litigation Team

1st Floor, Post Point 1.4

102 Petty France

London

SW1H 9AJ

XX Xxxxxx Xxxx

Grimsby

North East Lincolnshire

DNXX XXX

25 June 2016

Dear Sir/Madam

Re: Failure responding to correspondence regarding delivery of case stated

I understand my complaint should in the first instance be made to the Court Manager; however, the

concerns I wish to raise have been ongoing since November 2012 and relate to the court failing to

reply, so consider it valid that it is escalated now to the Complaints Handling Team. The complaint

surrounds a disputed order made against me by Justices at Grimsby Magistrates court which led

to an application to the court to state a case for an appeal to the high court.

I have been unable to obtain the case stated, despite making numerous attempts. It is this failure

that has prevented the appeal that was instituted on 22 November 2012 from proceeding to the

High Court to this day.

The injustice caused extends far beyond that set out in this complaint and so consider it just

preliminary information to get an investigation underway. It is intended, on agreement with theteam to forward details of the issues that have arisen as a result of the gross failure to enable a

comprehensive investigation to be carried out.

Those issues predominantly concern North East Lincolnshire Council misallocating payment to the

sum subject to appeal when payment was clearly intended for the years council tax account which

was current when paid. As the council has been able to engineer payment arrears this has led to

recovery being taken through the court each year since with further costs added in the most recent

proceedings. That in turn has led to time consuming and fruitless disputes i.e., formal complaints,

escalation of issues to the LGO, police, police appeals and entering into a private prosecution

against the police for negligence by improperly exercising police powers under Section 26 of the

Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015.

The issues, as far as those directly relating to HMCTS are evident from the correspondence

compiled chronologically appended to this letter, which is referable to the draft document

(chronology) prepared for, and intended to be part of the High Court papers for the case stated

appeal.

It will be evident on reading the account that the cause of the gross injustice which has protracted

so far over roughly three and a half years has been the unwillingness and refusal of the court tocooperate, which in some cases has involved more seriously lying.


2/135

Key points

Initial delay

There was no contact made when the Deputy Justices Clerk who was initially dealing with the

application left HMCTS toward the end of 2012. After several weeks having no update, enquiries

were made to find out why there was no progress being made and it was only on this prompt that I

was made aware that the Deputy Justices Clerk was no longer employed by HMCTS.

Unnecessary Claim for mandatory order

The failure to deal with queries about the recognizance which the Magistrates set at 500 resulted

in gross injustice as I had to research judicial review procedures (mandatory order) as it was not

reasonable that I appoint a legal professional. It was only by doing this and when the judicial

review claim was underway that the Magistrates' Court admitted in the Acknowledgement of

Service that the question of the appropriateness of the recognizance and/or the amount couldhave been considered by the court. Simply answering my correspondence would have meant

making the claim for judicial review was not necessary.

Unanswered correspondence to obtain final case

Various correspondence going unanswered from 19 August 2013 when representations were

made on the draft case, up until the Justices' Clerk finally made contact on 6 March 2014 stating

that either that day or the following the position regarding the case (advising on the next steps)

would be set out in writing. Even with that undertaking there was no communication advising on

the next steps. Subsequent attempts to find out what was happening elicited no response.

A letter sent 22 April 2014 requested the production of a Certificate of refusal to state a case under

section 111(5) of the Magistrates Court's Act 1980 but was never answered, neither was an email

sent 9 July 2014 to enquire into whether HMCTS had any arrangements in place to restrict my

contact with the court.

Judicial complaint to Humber Advisory Committee

Having no response until 23 February 2016 to a judicial complaint dated 2 September 2014 to theAdvisory Committee which was obtained only after engaging the Judicial Conduct Ombudsman. It

is claimed that the matter was dealt with on 16 September 2014 and stated that a Certificate of

refusal to state a case was not issued by the Justices because the final case was sent to me.

Despite this, a copy which has been requested has not been sent nor has the Justices Clerks

undertaking to inform me of the matter by 15 April 2016 been acted on.

Yours sincerely

X. Xxxxx


3/135

HM ourts

Tribunals

Service

__ .t

GRIMSBY


DN320QJ

6 November 2012

Dear Mr I

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 [email protected]

E [email protected]

E [email protected]

www.justice.gov.uk/about/hmcts/index.htm

Our ref: G45G04/MD/AW

Council Tax Liability Order

I am writing in response to your email sent to Mr Houlden on 5 November and which

has been passed to me for a response as Mr Houlden recently left the HM Courts and

Tribunal Service.

I note your comments and in particular your intention to appeal the decision of the court

to make a Liability Order in proceedings brought against you by North East

Lincolnshire Council and determined on 2 November. To assist I ask you to note that a

Liability Order can only be challenged by an appeal to the High Court by way of either

a case stated on a point of law (which must be done within 21 days via the Magistrates

Court) or a judicial review (time limit of 3 months and via the High Court).

The procedure is quite technical and for that reason I would strongly suggest that

before proceeding you consider taking independent legal advice.

In relation to other matters referred to in your email I would ask that in the first instance

you forward any correspondence to me and I will ensure it is passed on as necessary

to appropriate members of staff.

If I can be of further assistance please do not hesitate to contact me.

Yours truly,

;1 [ ~~

M L DRAPER

Deputy Justices Clerk


4/135

Page 1 of 1

Xxx

From: "Xxx" To: Sent: 16 November 2012 17:42Subject: Re: Council Tax Liability Order - G45G04/MD/AW

Dear Mr Draper

Re: Council Tax Liability Order

Thank you for your 6 November 2012 letter, regarding my intention to appeal the court's decision of making aliability order against me.

I've researched provisionally into appealing by way of a case stated. I realise I have only a week to make theapplication and have discovered a number of forms which might be necessary to complete theapplication. I fear there will be a requirement to include details I don't have, such as the Magistrates namessitting on the bench and a case or liability order reference.

My concern at this point is the likelihood that all details will not be completed within the 21 day time limit. Isthere any way I can buy some time by lodging the appeal and then supplying further details afterwards?

I'm unemployed, receiving no benefits and have no income whatsoever, so you will appreciate seeking legaladvice is not a realistic option for me. It does seem however, from my provisional research that there maybeconcessions for applicants on low incomes. I wondered if such things could be looked into after theapplication is made, to allow me time to concentrate on the point of law I wish to base the appeal on.

I suppose I'd need to disregard 95% of my original evidence and focus on the fact that no supporting evidencewas supplied by the authority to justify their costs were reasonable. And, that the liability order costs had beenfront loaded to the summons penalty in breach of regulation 34 of the council tax regs.

A point demonstrating this would be that prior to 1 April 2012, summons and liability order costs were 56%and 44% respectively of the total costs which would make the new costs (if they could be justified) only 39 forthe summons, not the 70 they're currently charging.

Yours sincerely

X. Xxxxx

20/06/2016


5/135

Page 1 of 1

Xxx

From: "Draper, Mike" To: "Xxx" Sent: 19 November 2012 15:19Subject: RE: Council Tax Liability Order - G45G04/MD/AW

Dear Mr Xxxxx

In reply to the points made in your email I would ask you to note the following information.

An application to state a case for the opinion of the High Court is governed by strict procedures. Unfortunatelyit is not possible to give notice and then file additional particulars later this is because once lodged the appealtriggers further procedures which are themselves governed by strict time limits.

As for the fee I can say that it is possible to apply for remission in certain circumstances. A copy of therelevant application form and accompanying notes is available for collection from the court office or it can bedownloaded at http://www.justice.gov.uk/forms/hmcts, the booklet number is EX160A (the form is inthe booklet and is form EX160).

I hope that this information assists.

Regards

Mike DraperDeputy Justices ClerkGrimsby Magistrates Court

Xxx

From: "Xxx"

To: Sent: 20 November 2012 11:19Subject: Re: Council Tax Liability Order - G45G04/MD/AW

Dear Mr Draper

Thank you for yesterday's email.

I intend to deliver my completed application to the court in person so as to obtain a signature for its receipt,hopefully on Thursday 22nd November.

However, I'm unsure whether the application will also need serving on the council as described as "otherparty" in 64.2.(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Rules 2012. I'm clearly appealing the decision of the court, but

if this is required I will ensure the application is also served on the council.

One other point in regards the Criminal Procedure Rules. I note the 2012 rules have been amended inregards Part 64 (to appeal to the High Court by case stated).

With regards 64.1.(2) of previous editions, this no longer appears in the current 2012 Criminal ProcedureRules:

(2) Where one of the questions on which the opinion of the High Court is sought is whether therewas evidence on which the magistrates court could come to its decision, the particular finding offact made by the magistrates court which it is claimed cannot be supported by the evidencebefore the magistrates court shall be specified in such application.

Should this be disregarded even though apparently relevant to my case?

Yours sincerely

X. Xxxxx

20/06/2016


6/135

Page 1 of 1

Xxx

From: "Xxx" To: "Draper, Mike" Sent: 21 November 2012 10:51Attach: crim-pr-form-part64-appl-appeal-high-court.docSubject: Re: Council Tax Liability Order - G45G04/MD/AW

Dear Mr Draper

Could you please fill in details and return the attached application form in respect of the hearing. Bearing inmind I have no details of the liability order; no paperwork, no reference, no names etc.

Yours sincerely

X. Xxxxx

Xxx

From: "Draper, Mike" To: "Xxx" Sent: 21 November 2012 11:14Subject: RE: Council Tax Liability Order - G45G04/MD/AW

Dear Mr Xxxxx

Thank you for your email requesting assistance with your appeal. Unfortunately I am not able to do thatbecause of the potential conflict of interest that may arise having regard to my professional role as adviser tothe Magistrates whose decision you seek to challenge.

Regards


Xxx

From: "Draper, Mike"

To: "Xxx" Sent: 21 November 2012 16:36Attach: crim-pr-form-part64-appl-appeal-high-court.docSubject: FW: Council Tax Liability Order - G45G04/MD/AW

Hello Mr Xxxxx

You do not need to be concerned that you cannot add a court case reference number as noindividual numbers are allocated to applications of this kind. It will be sufficient for you to note that the matterbrought by the Council was for a liability order noting the council reference number from your summons willthen be sufficient. I hope this assists.

Regards


20/06/2016


7/135

1

APPLICATION TO MAGISTRATES COURT OR CROWN COURT TO STATE A CASEFOR AN APPEAL TO THE HIGH COURT

(Criminal Procedure Rules, rule 64.2)

Case details

Name of defendant: Mr. xxxxxxxxxxx

Court: Grimsby Magistrates Court

Case reference number: Council Tax 5501xxxxxxx

Charge(s): Liability Order brought by North East Lincolnshire Council

This is an application by [Mr xxl xlxxxxxli (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 aquestion of law or jurisdiction, under Criminal Procedure Rule 64.2. There are different forms for appealingfrom a magistrates court to the Crown Court under Criminal Procedure Rules Part 63, or from the Crown Courtto 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 anelectronic version of this form, the boxes will expand1. If you use a paper version and need more space, youmay 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 whichyou want to appeal to the High Court. If that decision was by a magistrates court, the court has no powerto extend that time limit.

A party who wants to make representations about this application must serve those representations underCriminal 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 HighCourt (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 wasmade for a proportion (60) of the Councils 70 summons costs. The level of costs were disputed at thehearing as unreasonable.

1Forms for use with the Rules are at: http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/criminal/formspage.


8/135

2

2) Question(s) for the High Court. What question(s) of law or jurisdiction do you want the court to statefor the opinion of the High Court?

The questions focus on two principle points of law with regards regulation 34 of the Council Tax regulations (SI1992/613).

Those points being, whether

i) costs being disputed as unreasonable should have been awarded by the court without evidencefrom the council to support them.

ii) costs specifically incurred by the council for obtaining the liability order should have been chargedat the summons issuing stage.

3) Grounds of appeal. Explain briefly why you think the decision against which you want to appeal waswrong, 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 billingauthority to recover its reasonably incurred costs in connection with liability order applications. The costs weredisputed on the grounds that hundreds of thousands of pounds awarded would not be reasonable in respect ofa single bulk liability order, especially considering the process is largely automated. Neither can costs bequantified 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 hadnever 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 reasonableby 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 imposedcharges; 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 andincentivise 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 authoritiesare taking in increasing numbers. (There are two in this region currently, Bradford and Sheffield.) Thereasoning behind this is that it is believed that some businesses deliberately delay payment of Ratesas the penalty for late payment is so small in comparison to the amount that might be owed. The extracost 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 Ordersobtained in the current year, an extra 38,000 of additional cost income would be generated bringingthe total to approximately 390,000.


9/135

3

2002 increase in summons:

The report identifies ways of funding additional resources to ensure the backlog of work that has arisendue to changes in the IT system are addressed.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

that the Council Tax summons cost be increased from 10 to 15 with immediate effect.

2011 budget and medium term financial plan:

NELC detailed in its 2011 budget proposals it would raise a forecasted additional 752,000 over 4 years byincreasing the summons cost.

It proposed to "Increase summons cost" and was listed in their budget proposals under the heading "IncomeGeneration" and forecasted additional revenue of 188,000 for each of the following 4 years.

Income Generation

1.52 In relation to proposed areas for charging to be introduced, 81 per cent favoured increasedcharges for summonses compared to 57 per cent who supported charging for replacement bins orgarden waste collections. Only 15 per cent were not in favour of any charges being introduced.

The decision to increase charges for the summons had not been brought about by additional costs incurred bythe council. It was intended simply to plug a hole in its finances, reinforced by the proposals being put to a vote.

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 stagewould 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 costsrespectively, which would make costs after the review (if justified) only 39 for the summons, not the 70they're currently charging.

To demonstrate this further; 22% of costs made up the summons charge in 2001. Based on the then costs ratioand todays figures, the summonsshould 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 themaximum costs which could be charged for obtaining a Liability Order. It further specified that this was a totalmaximum, including those of instituting the application. This was apparently only in respect of Welshauthorities, but nevertheless amending the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992, asare relevant to English councils.

This maximum equals the amount NELC currently charge for issuing a summons. Statistics show, in certaincircumstances, Welsh authorities issue annually a very small fraction of NELCs total. This maximum chargewould be reasonable only for those Welsh authorities issuing relatively low numbers of summonses, the logicbeing that costs are split between fewer defendants. This should be an indication that if English regulationswere ever subject to the same amendment, NELC would have no reasonable grounds to charge up to the

maximum permissible.


10/135

4

4) Other applications. I am also applying for:

an extension of time for asking the court to state a case for the High Court.

You can ONLY apply for an extension of the 21 day time limit if this is an application to the CrownCourt.

pending my appeal, the suspension of a disqualification.

For example, a disqualification from driving. You can ONLY apply for the suspension of adisqualification which the court imposed in this case.

pending my appeal, bail.

You can only apply for bail pending appeal if the court sentenced you to imprisonment or detention.

Give reasons for any of these applications you are making:

Signed2: [defendant / defendants solicitor][prosecutor]

Date: 22/11/2012

2If 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.


11/135

HM ourts

ribun ls

Service

GRIMSBY


DN320QJ

22 November 2012

Dear Mr

Case Stated.

Julie Collins

Courts and Tribunals Manager for

Humber South Yorkshire

Alison Watts

Clerk to the Justices


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 [email protected]

E [email protected]

E [email protected]

www.justice.gov.uklabout/hmcts/index.htm

Our ref: G47G05/MD/AW

I acknowledge receipt of your application for the Magistrates to state a case in the

matter of North East Lincolnshire Council v Yourself.

Once the documentation has been considered I will contact you further.

Yours sincerely

M L DRAPER

Deputy Justices Clerk


12/135

Page 1 of 1

Xxx

From: "Xxx" To: "Draper, Mike" Sent: 28 December 2012 15:16Subject: Council Tax Liability Order - G45G04/MD/AW

Dear Mr Draper

Are you able to up-date me with any developments in regards my application for the Magistrates' court tostate a case in an appeal to the High Court.

My application was submitted on 22 November 2012, and although I've received acknowledgement for thisthere has been no other correspondence. Nothing for example informing me whether the court has agreedto proceed, nor a certification stating that the application has been refused.

Yours sincerely

X. Xxxxx

Xxx

From: To: Sent: 28 December 2012 15:16Attach: ATT00495.dat; ATT00496.emlSubject: Delivery Status Notification (Failure)

This is an automatically generated Delivery Status Notification.

Unable to deliver message to the following recipients, because the message was forwarded more than

the maximum allowed times. This could indicate a mail loop.

[email protected]

Xxx

From: "Anderson, Karen" To: "Xxx" Sent: 28 December 2012 15:25Subject: Out of Office: Council Tax Liability Order - G45G04/MD/AW

I have now left the magistrates' court and from Monday 26 November will commence training in

Hull. If you wish to contact the Justices' Clerk, Alison Watts, please telephone 01302 347303/4 -

thank you. If you have any queries please leave me a message by email. If your query is regarding

the magistrates' court please contact the main office on 01472 320444 - Thank you - Karen

20/06/2016


13/135

Page 1 of 1

Xxx

From: "xxx" To: Sent: 28 December 2012 15:31Subject: Fw: Council Tax Liability Order - G45G04/MD/AW

Dear Ms Watts

Could you please forward this message to Mr Draper. The email is not being delivered for some reason.

Thank you.

----- Original Message -----From:XxxTo:Draper, MikeSent:Friday, December 28, 2012 2:16 PMSubject:Council Tax Liability Order - G45G04/MD/AW

Dear Mr Draper



Yours sincerely

X. Xxxxx

20/06/2016


14/135

Page 1 of 1

Xxx

From: "Xxx" To: Sent: 10 January 2013 16:12Subject: Fw: Council Tax Liability Order - G45G04/MD/AW

Can I please have acknowledgement of this email.

----- Original Message -----From:XxxTo:[email protected]:Friday, December 28, 2012 2:31 PMSubject:Fw: Council Tax Liability Order - G45G04/MD/AW

Dear Ms Watts

Could you please forward this message to Mr Draper. The email is not being delivered for some reason.

Thank you.

----- Original Message -----From:XxxTo:Draper, MikeSent:Friday, December 28, 2012 2:16 PMSubject:Council Tax Liability Order - G45G04/MD/AW

Dear Mr Draper



Yours sincerely

X. Xxxxx

20/06/2016


15/135

Page 1 of 1

Xxx

From: "Townell, Graeme" To: Sent: 14 January 2013 12:24Subject: Application re liability order

Dear Mr Xxxxx,

I have recently been passed your email regarding the above matter.

Mr Draper left the service at the end of last year and his email account will now have been closed

down.

I shall try to find out what is happening with your application and update you as soon as I can.

Yours sincerely,

Graeme Townell

Legal Team Manager

Xxx

From: "Xxx"To: "Townell, Graeme" Sent: 25 January 2013 12:36Subject: Re: Application re liability order

Dear Mr Townell

Thank you for your 14 January 2013 email. Could you please up-date me with

any further information you hold regarding my application. In addition,

could you supply the names of two Magistrates sitting on the Bench

(identifying the Chair) in respect of the council tax liability order

hearing on 2nd November 2012.

The information is required as I intend to submit two separate complaints;one to HMCTS in respect of how these liability order hearings are conducted

and another to the local Advisory Committee, specifically in relation to the

Magistrate chairing the hearing.

Yours sincerely

X. Xxxxx

20/06/2016


16/135

HM Courts &TribunalsService

When calling please ask for: xxxxxxxxxx Direct

Line: 01302347304

Our ref: AW/KEC

Your ref:

24 January 2013

Dear xxxxxxx

Re: North East Lincolnshire Council v Yourself

Grimsby Magistrates' Court

Application to State a Case

Mrs xxxxxxxxJustices' Clerk for Humber & South YorkshireDoncaster Magistrates' CourtPO Box 49The Law Courts

College Road

DONCASTER ON13HT

DX 742840 (Doncaster 20)

T: 01302 366711

F: 01302 327906

E:

Minicom VII: 01302 369066

www.justice.gov.uk

Thank you for your e mail correspondence in connection with this matter.

Mr xxxxx has now left the employment of HMCTS and your matter has been escalated to me. I shall be

grateful if all future correspondence in this matter is forwarded to me at my office in Doncaster to avoid

any unnecessary delays.

Further to your application to state a case I have now discussed the matter with the Justices who

adjudicated upon your case.

Further to section 114 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 the Justices are not required to state a case

until the applicant has entered into a recognizance to prosecute the appeal without delay and to submit to

the judgment of the High Court.

Accordingly, the Justices require you to enter into a recognizance in the sum of 500.00. If entered into,

the recognizance would be subject to forfeiture if after delivery of the case stated the applicant failed to

prosecute the appeal.

Entering into a recognizance is in effect a promise to pay a sum of money (in your case 500.00) in the

event you decide not to pursue your appeal in the High Court. When you enter into the recognizance (ie

make the promise to pay) you are not required to pay any money, and provided you take your case to the

High Court you will not be liable to pay 500.00. However, in the event you decide not to take your appeal

to the High Court you may be required to pay some, or indeed all of the amount of the recognizance.

Until the recognizance is entered into, the Justices will not state a case for the consideration of the High

Court.


17/135

- 2 -

The recognizance must be entered into before the magistrates' court at Grimsby and I would be grateful if

you would make contact with my office at Doncaster in order to make the necessary arrangements for this

to take place.

Yours sincerely

Mrs xxxxxxx

Justices' Clerk

Page 2


18/135

Page 1 of 1

Xxx

From: "Townell, Graeme" To: Sent: 4 February 2013 16:30Subject: RE:Application re liability order

Dear Mr Xxxxx,

I understand that by now you may have received correspondence from the Clerk to the Justices in

respect of your application.

In respect of your request for the names of the magistrates sitting on 2nd November 2012 I can

inform you that the chairman was Mr J O'Nions and his colleague was Mr T Shepherdson.

Yours sincerely,

Graeme Townell

Legal Team Manager

20/06/2016


19/135

Page 1 of 1

Xxx

From: "Xxx" To: Cc: "Robinson, Joanne" ; [email protected]: 06 February 2013 10:42Attach: Magistrates court Doncaster 5 Feb 2013.pdf

Subject: Re: Application to State a Case - Grimsby Magistrates' Court

Dear Ms Crocken

Please forward the attached letter to Mrs Watts, Justices' Clerk for Humber & South Yorkshire.

Thank you

Yours sincerely

X. Xxxxx

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Ms Robinson

Re: Section 82 of the Local Government Act 2003 Application to quash liability order

Account 5501XXXXXX

You will see from the attached that the justices dealing with my application to state a case to the High Courtare exercising their rights under section 114 of the Magistrates' court Act 1980 and requiring I enter intorecognizance in the sum of 500.

The supporting papers accompanying my application to state a case have provided evidence that my grossannual income is substantially below the set level, and so qualified for full remission of the Magistrates courtfee (500). Consequently, setting an additional fee of 500 in these circumstances is effectively denying myaccess to the Courts.

I have explained in the attached that I will be contacting the council to seek an alternative remedy, shouldthe recent obstacles put in the way of the application, not be overcome.

I'm therefore requesting that North East Lincolnshire council apply to the Magistrates court under section 82 ofthe Local Government Act 2003 to either quash the liability order for 60 obtained on the 2nd November2012, or apply for a lesser amount than that for which the original order was made. Perhaps the 10 alreadypaid, i.e., reasonable costs.

Yours sincerely

X. Xxxxx

P.S. I have had no contact from your bailiffs Rossendales since the council threatened in a letter dated 19December 2012 to instruct them within 14 days. Do I take it that NELC have not and will not be instructing itsbailiff contractor to enforce the sum of 60 and the council consider the amount no longer owed.

06/06/2016


20/135

Justices' Clerk for Humber & South Yorkshire


PO Box 49

The Law Courts

College Road

Doncaster

DN1 3HT

05 February 2013

Dear Mrs xxxxx

Re: Application to State a Case Grimsby Magistrates Court

Thank you for outlining the next steps and clarifying that the agreement for the justices to state a

case is conditional on entering into recognizance. However, there are some points I would like

clarifying, one being the terms of the recognizance detailed in your letter appear not strictly in

accordance with section 114 of the MCA 1980.

Your letter implies the case would be delivered without payment as the recognizance would be

subject to forfeiture only upon failure to prosecute the appeal. This appears relevant only to a

criminal matter as Section 114 draws a distinction for such a case. In non-criminal matters a

justices' clerk shall not be required to deliver the case to the applicant until the applicant has paid

the fees payable for the case and for the recognizances to the designated officer for the court.

It is also conditioned under the same to pay any High Court costs which that Court may award,

whilst in your letter it is unclear whether the recognizance would include this.

On an application to state a case for the opinion of the High Court, the fees listed as payable

under schedule 1 of the Magistrates Courts Fees Order are 500. It also states that where this ispayable, no further fee is payable in respect of the preparation of a draft case by the justices clerk

for taking recognizance.

The justices once deciding that a recognizance is necessary must take the applicant's means

into account in setting the amount. A completed EX160 form accompanied my application to the

Magistrates court to state the case (22 November 2012). The supporting papers detailing my

gross annual income provided evidence that this was substantially below the set level, and so

qualified for full remission of the Magistrates court fee.

It is therefore illogical that by completing form EX160 (effectively means tested) I qualified for full

remission of the 500 Magistrates court fee, whilst the justices, after presumably taking mymeans into account, concluded that the recognizance should be 500. Setting such a fee in these

circumstances could be seen as a denial of access to the Courts.


21/135

It is noted that since the appeal was lodged, the court has taken two months to make contact on

this issue. I was not notified that Mr xxxxxx had left the service and his email account closed

down, until Id prompted the court. I therefore have concerns that this application would have

been overlooked completely if the failure to correspond had not been queried.

I have further concerns about who would be landed the task of preparing the draft case as it was

Mr xxxxxx no longer in the employ of HMCTS who was in attendance and advisor to thejustices on the day of my hearing. It would also appear that an unusually high turn over, either

through reorganisation or redundancies has left the Grimsby Magistrates court lacking any staff to

fulfill the role of justices clerk.

Although the current Criminal Procedure Rules are unclear whether a time limit applies, 64.2 of the

2011 rules specifies that a draft case shall be sent to all parties within 21 days after receipt of an

application. That is of course unless the justices refuse to state a case under section 111(5) of the

MCA 1980. That has not happened, as requiring recognizance conditioned to prosecute the appeal,

does not constitute a refusal to state a case.

Aside from the above I have to assume that if not frivolous the justices consider the

application lacking in merit or have concerns that the appeal may not be pursued, and is why they

have made their agreement to state a case conditional on entering into a recognizance.

Regardless of whether justices agree to state the case, it still remains that the court issued a

liability order where there was no evidence on which the Magistrates could have found their

decision. Consequently North East Lincolnshire Council has threatened to recover, through their

bailiffs, the amount specified on the order, despite there being no supporting evidence put before

the magistrates.

I will therefore make a suggestion that the court considers the possibility of reopening the caseunder the provision of Section 142 of the MCA 1980 to rectify the mistake and set aside the

liability order. Im aware Magistrates courts powers are purely statutory and s.142 applies only to

reopening criminal cases, however, I believe the authority to set aside liability orders has now

been established as a common law principle developed in case law.

There is also the possibility that the local authority apply under section 82 of the Local

Government Act 2003 to have the liability order quashed. I will put this to the council and suggest

they do this or apply for a lesser amount than that for which the original order was made. Perhaps

the amount already paid, i.e., reasonable costs.

Yours sincerely


22/135

Page 1 of 1

Xxx

From: "Crocken, karen" To: "Xxx" Sent: 06 February 2013 18:32Subject: Re: Application to State a Case - Grimsby Magistrates' Court

Hello Mr Xxxxx

Thank you for your correspondence which I will bring to the attention of Mrs Watts.Regards

Karen

Karen CrockenLegal Admin Team Leader - Humber & South Yorkshire ClusterDoncaster Magistrates' CourtPO BOX 49, College RoadDoncaster, DN1 3HT

DX 742840 Doncaster 20

Tel: 01302 347304 Fax: 01302 327906

Help save paper - do you need to print this e-mail?

I am not authorised to bind the Ministry of Justice contractually, nor to make representations or other statements which may bind the Ministry ofJustice in any way via electronic means.

Xxx

From: Robinson, Joanne" To: "Xxx" Sent: 08 February 2013 13:32Attach: 20130208 X Xxxxx.docSubject: RE: Application to State a Case - Grimsby Magistrates' Court

Not Protectively Marked

Dear Mr Xxxxx

Attached response to your e mail of 6thFebruary

Regards

Joanne Robinson,Local Taxation & Benefits Shared Service Manager,North & North East Lincolnshire Councils

Civic Offices, Knoll Street, Cleethorpes, DN35 8LN01472 323761 / [email protected]

[email protected]@northlincs.gov.uk

Not Protectively Marked

07/06/2016


23/135

Strategic Director ResourcesLiz Jones

www.nelincs.gov.uk

Local Taxation & Benefits Service, North East Lincolnshire Council, Civic Offices, Knoll Street, Cleethorpes. DN35 8LN.

Telephone (01472) 323761

Mr X Xxxxx

By e mail

8th

February 2013

Dear Mr Xxxxx

Council Tax Liability Order

Thank you for your e mail of 6thFebruary 2012.

I am not prepared to apply to the Magistrates Court to quash the liability orderobtained on 2nd November 2012. The liability order was correctly obtained for the

outstanding balance due at that time.

No decision has been taken at the present time regarding further action to enforcethe debt.

Yours sincerely

Joanne RobinsonLocal Taxation & Benefits Shared Service Manager


24/135

Page 1 of 1

Xxx

From: "Xxx" To: "Robinson, Joanne" ;Cc: Sent: 14 February 2013 22:17Attach: T - S & L Order Feb 14 2013.pdf

Subject: Fw: Application to State a Case - Grimsby Magistrates' Court

Dear Ms Robinson

Re: Section 82 of the Local Government Act 2003 Application to quash liability order

Please find attached letter.

Yours sincerely

X. Xxxxx

Xxx

From: "Xxx" To: Sent: 19 February 2013 13:30Subject: Magistrates court Doncaster 5 Feb 2013.pdf

Dear Ms Watts

Would you please acknowledge you have received my letter dated 5 February 2013.

For your reference, the file (letter) attached to my 6 February 2013 email was "Magistrates court Doncaster 5Feb 2013.pdf".

Yours sincerely

X. Xxxxx

07/06/2016


25/135

North East Lincolnshire Council

Finance Department

Civic Offices Knoll Street

Cleethorpes


DN35 8LN

Ref: NG/CTR/12912

14 February 2013

xx Xxxxxxx Xxxxx

Grimsby


XX00 0XX

Dear Ms Robinson

Re: Application to Magistrates Court to Quash Liability Order Acc 550xxxxxxx

Thank you for your 8 February 2013 letter clarifying your position with regards quashing the

liability order. Although you state that the liability order was correctly obtained, NELC has provided

no supporting evidence.

According to S.I. 1992/613, NELC should have ceased court action on 17 October 2012, the point

at which I paid the aggregate of the sum outstanding and an amount equal to the costs

reasonably incurred by the authority.

Application for liability order

34.(5) If, after a summons has been issued in accordance with paragraph (2) but before the

application is heard, there is paid or tendered to the authority an amount equal to the aggregate

of

(a) the sum specified in the summons as the sum outstanding or so much of it as

remains outstanding (as the case may be); and

(b) a sum of an amount equal to the costs reasonably incurred by the authority in

connection with the application up to the time of the payment or tender,

the authority shall accept the amount and the application shall not be proceeded with.

This is reason enough to satisfy the council and Magistrates court that the liability order was

obtained incorrectly, but to reinforce this I refer you to my letters 17 and 18 September 2012,

highlighting the distinction between reasonably incurred costs in connection with the summons

and those for obtaining the order.

The summons should not, but does include liability order costs expenditure which has not been

incurred at the summons stage. This is not in accordance with regulation 34 which states these

are imposed once a liability order has been obtained.


26/135

According to NELC it makes a loss in liability order applications, i.e., its costs revenue is less than

the incurred expenditure in sending summonses (the councils unfounded claim). It would appear

then if that is the case thousands of pounds each year could be saved in recovery costs through a

basic process of monitoring cases progressed to recovery.

It seems the council has this flexibility as regulation 34 of S.I. 1992/613 states that the authority

has no legal obligation to bring about court proceedings only that it mayapply to a Magistratescourt.

Application for liability order

34.(1) If an amount which has fallen due under regulation 23(3) or (4) is wholly or partly

unpaid, or (in a case where a final notice is required under regulation 33) the amount stated in

the final notice is wholly or partly unpaid at the expiry of the period of 7 days beginning with the

day on which the notice was issued, the billing authority may, in accordance with paragraph

(2), apply to a magistrates' court for an order against the person by whom it is payable

The council would substantially reduce the numbers taken to court if it followed some of its own

policies detailed in its Debt Recovery Strategy. For example, under section 5, Principles of

Enforcement it states at 5.2 that the potential loss of income should be weighed up against the

cost of enforcement:

5.2 Proportional- a balance will be struck between the potential loss of income to the Council

and the costs of the enforcement action.

Perhaps relevant to thousands of cases being unnecessarily processed through the court each year

are those who miss deadlines with instalments and have been subjected to this because of theneed to automate this kind of operation.

Cases for which enforcement is unnecessary could easily be identified. For example, payments

registering on a persons account, albeit subsequent to a final notice, would be a good indication

that enforcement would achieve nothing other than adding to the householders probable cash

flow problem. This, checked against the account payers payment history may justify a decision

against taking legal action and is also a consideration detailed at item 5.3 of the councils Debt

Recovery Strategy.

Yours sincerely

X. Xxxxx


27/135

Page 1 of 1

Xxx

From: "Xxx" To:


28/135

Page 1 of 1

Xxx

From: "Xxx" To: Sent: 23 March 2013 19:47Attach: Magistrates court letter 24 Jan 2013.pdf; Magistrates court Doncaster 5 Feb 2013.pdf; crim-pr-

form-part64-appl-appeal-high-court.doc; Application mandamus 23 March 2013.pdf

Subject: Application for order of mandamus - section 111(6) of the Magistrates' Court Act 1980

Dear Sir/Madam

Re: Application to Magistrates' Court to state a case for an appeal to the High Court

Please find attached letter dated 23 March 2013 and documents referred to in that letter.

Yours sincerely

X. Xxxxx

Xxx

From: "Administrative Court Office, General Office"

To: "Xxx" Sent: 25 March 2013 11:41Subject: RE: Application for order of mandamus - section 111(6) of the Magistrates' Court Act 1980 * NOT

PROTECTIVELY MARKED *

,

.

.

.....

*

07/06/2016


29/135

Administrative Court OfficeThe Royal Courts of Justice

Strand

LondonWC2A 2LL

23 March 2013

XX Xxxxx Xxxxx

Grimsby


DNXX XXX

Dear Sir/Madam

Re: Application to Magistrates' Court to state a case for an appeal to the High Court

In accordance with section 111(6) of the Magistrates' Court Act 1980, I apply to the High Court to

make an order of mandamus requiring the justices to state a case.

Background prompting this Application

An appeal notice was served on Grimsby Magistrates Court on 22 November 2012 in accordance

with the Criminal Procedure Rules, rule 64.2 (see attached). Written acknowledgement was

received dated the same.

No contact was made by the court until January 14, 2013, prompted by attempts to make contact

with the Deputy Justices' Clerk dealing with the appeal. At this point I was informed the Clerk had

left the service at the end of 2012.

The matter had been put in the hands of the Justices' Clerk for Humber & South Yorkshire, who on24 January 2013 advised that the Justices require recognizance to be entered into in the sum of

500 (see attached).

In a letter 05 February 2013 (see attached) several queries were raised concerning the Justices'

Clerk letter, one of which being the recognizance set in my particular financial circumstances

would deny my access to the Courts.

I've heard nothing since, all but an email on 27 February 2013 confirming that the correspondence

is receiving attention from the Justices Clerk who will respond further in due course.

It seems as things are, there is no likelihood of this matter progressing, however, I consider the

point of law I'm contesting is in the public interest and ask the Administrative Court's opinion on

this.

Yours sincerely

X. Xxxx


30/135

Page 1 of 1

Xxx

From: "Xxx" To: "Administrative Court Office, General Office"

Sent: 25 March 2013 12:35Subject: Re: Application for order of mandamus - section 111(6) of the Magistrates' Court Act 1980 * NOT


Dear Ms Dymerska

I can confirm the email you refer to was intended for the High Court's attention. Maybe you can supply mewith a more appropriate contact to send this correspondence to.

For your information the following is the contents of the letter attached to the earlier email.

Xxx

From: "Harding, Glynn" To: Sent: 26 March 2013 09:31Subject: FW: Application for order of mandamus - section 111(6) of the Magistrates' Court Act 1980 * NOT


,

.

.

11, 23 ,

. 3

. 10

. , 11

.

.

,

.

.

Glynn Harding | Case Progression Officer | Administrative Court Office | Telephone:

020 7947 8295 | Fax: 020 7947 7845

If replying by email, please use the following address:Administrativecourtoffice.generaloffice@courtservice.x.gsi.gov.uk

07/06/2016


31/135

Page 1 of 1

Xxx

From: "Xxx" To: "Harding, Glynn" Sent: 26 March 2013 16:28Attach: Magistrates court letter 24 Jan 2013.pdf; Magistrates court Doncaster 5 Feb 2013.pdf; crim-pr-

form-part64-appl-appeal-high-court.doc; Application mandamus 23 March 2013.pdfSubject: Fw: Application for order of mandamus - section 111(6) of the Magistrates' Court Act 1980

Dear Mr Harding

Re: Your email this morning

Thank you for your response today. I am forwarding my original email in case the attachments didn't getpassed on to you in the hope they may clarify the position.

In summary, the Magistrates have neither stated the case nor refused. The question is whether they areeffectively denying me access to the court by conditioning recognizance is entered into to the sum of 500 toprosecute the case without delay.

The attachments explain in more detailed but I suspect the Magistrates court are refusing to deal with me. Mycorrespondence (ref Magistrates court Doncaster 5 Feb 2013) has not been addressed and doubt it ever will,despite my prompting them.

Yours sincerely

X. Xxxxx

Xxx

From: "Harding, Glynn" To: Xxx Sent: 27 March 2013 11:36Subject: RE: Application for order of mandamus - section 111(6) of the Magistrates' Court Act 1980 * NOT


,

. (...)

.

.

Glynn Harding | Case Progression Officer | Administrative Court Office | Telephone:

020 7947 8295 | Fax: 020 7947 7845

If replying by email, please use the following address:Administrativecourtoffice.generaloffice@courtservice.x.gsi.gov.uk

07/06/2016


32/135

Page 1 of 1

Xxx

From: "Xxx" To: "Crocken, Karen" Sent: 27 March 2013 12:13Subject: Re: No Response to mail?

Dear Ms Crocken,

It seems apparent that Mrs Watts has no intention of dealing with the issues I raised in my 5 February 2013correspondence.

All I would like from you is to acknowledge this so I can take appropriate action.

Yours sincerely

X. Xxxxx

Xxx

From: "Crocken, karen" To: "Xxx" Sent: 27 March 2013 14:51Subject: RE: No Response to mail?

Hello Mr Xxxxx

I hereby acknowledge receipt of your email, which is receiving attention.Regards

Karen

Karen CrockenLegal Admin Team Leader - Humber & South Yorkshire Cluster

Doncaster Magistrates' CourtPO BOX 49, College Road

Doncaster, DN1 3HT


Tel: 01302 347304 Fax: 01302 327906

Help save paper - do you need to print this e-mail?

I am not authorised to bind the Ministry of Justice contractually, nor to make representations or other statements which may bind the Ministry ofJustice in any way via electronic means.

07/06/2016


33/135

Page 1 of 1

Xxx

From: "Xxx" To: "Crocken, Karen" Sent: 27 March 2013 14:59Subject: Re: No Response to mail?

Dear Ms Crocken,

You appear to have misunderstood.

The acknowledgement I was seeking was that;

"Mrs Watts has no intention of dealing with the issues I raised in my 5 February 2013 correspondence".

Not as it seems, an acknowledgement of my last email asking for this acknowledgement.

Yours sincerely

X. Xxxxx

Xxx

From: "Xxx" To: ; "Crocken, Karen" Sent: 29 April 2013 18:41Attach: Magistrates court Doncaster 29 April 2013.pdfSubject: Certificate of refusal to state a case

Dear Ms Watts/Crocken,

Please find letter attached for the attention of Alison Watts.

Yours sincerely

X. Xxxxx

07/06/2016


34/135

Justices' Clerk for Humber & South

Yorkshire


PO Box 49

The Law Courts

College Road

DoncasterDN1 3HT

29 April 2013

XX Xxxxx Xxxx

Grimsby


DNXX XXX

Dear Mrs Watts

Re: Application to State a Case Grimsby Magistrates Court

In the absence of a response to my 5 February 2013 letter I request consideration be given to

issuing a certificate under section 111(5) of the MCA 1980, documenting the reasons why the

justices have refused to state the case. This will enable further investigation to the merits of my

case by seeking the High Courts permission to proceed with a claim for a mandatory order.

I have sought legal advice and understand that in a straight forward case, a justices clerks refusal

to state the case until a recognizance has been entered into, does not constitute a refusal, and

would not ordinarily be obliged to supply the applicant with a certificate stating that the application

has been refused.

However, this is not straight forward as the justices have exercised their discretion to require a

recognizance, knowing I qualify for fee remission. This would signal that in the unlikely event, all

or part of the 500 became payable, it would cause financial hardship. In any event, not setting a

recognizance fee would not prejudice the Magistrates courts position.

It can therefore be argued that my means have not been taken into account in considering the

amount set for the recognizance, something the magistrates must do.

Presumably the sum is set at a level that would commit the applicant to the case, but bearing in

mind magistrates must take into account a persons means, if decided necessary, a recognizance

should be set at a level that does not deny that person access to justice. Of course if the case isconsidered to lack merit, this would also factor into any consideration.

From a perspective of commitment and having a valid case arguable in law, neither of these give

rise to warrant recognizance. The following, is a record of the correspondence which you have (or

can access) and supports claims that an argument has been prepared to be put before the High

Court.

Twelve letters in total sent as attachments in an email (22 October 2012) to Grimsby

Magistrates' courts listing Manager, comprising evidence that costs claimed and awarded

were not reasonable (Re: Council Tax Liability order Hearing - 2nd November 2012).

Letters were dated 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 of September and 1 October

2012, all with reference NG/CTR/12912.


35/135

Another email (28 October 2012) sent to the same Manager had two further

correspondence attached, comprising a summary, additional information and a claim for

costs. Letters were dated 26 and 28 October 2012, again with reference NG/CTR/12912.

The above are the relevant documents sent to Grimsby Magistrates court in respect of the

November 2, 2012 liability order hearing. Additional evidence has been compiled in the interim and

will contribute further in support of an argument to be put before the High Court.

Please acknowledge receipt of this letter and provide either a response addressing the issues Ive

raised or certificate stating that my application has been refused explaining the reason.

If a response is not forthcoming within 14 days I will take it that the justices are both refusing to

state the case and to give a certificate and will apply for permission to bring judicial review

proceedings for a mandatory order requiring the Court to state a case. In these circumstances

magistrates can be required to pay the costs for the various fees involved in applying to the High

Court for this order.

Yours sincerely

X. Xxxxxx


36/135

Notes for guidance are available which explain

how to complete the judicial review claim

form. Please read them carefully before you

complete the form.

name

address

Telephone no.

E-mail address

Fax no.

name

address

Telephone no.

E-mail address

Fax no.

name

address

Telephone no.

E-mail address

Fax no.

name

name

address

Telephone no.

E-mail address

Fax no.

SECTION 1 Details of the claimant(s) and defendant(s)

name

name

address

Telephone no.

E-mail address

Fax no.

redacted

redacted

redacted

[email protected]

Grimsby Magistrates' Court

Victoria StreetGrimsbyNorth East LincolnshireDX 707680 Grimsby 5

01472 320444 01472 320440


37/135

SECTION 4 Permission to proceed with a claim for judicial review

SECTION 3 Details of the decision to be judicially reviewed

SECTION 2 Details of other interested parties

name

address

Telephone no.

E-mail address

Fax no.

name

address

Telephone no.

E-mail address

Fax no.

Decision:

Date of decision:

name

address


North East Lincolnshire CouncilCivic Offices Knoll StreetCleethorpes

North East LincolnshireDN35 8LN

01472 313131

Doncaster Magistrates' Court, PO Box 49The Law CourtsCollege Road

DoncasterDN1 3HT

01302 366711 01302 327906

Magistrates requiring recognizance is entered into in the sum of 500 to state a case for an appeal to the High Court.

24 January 2013

Grimsby Magistrates' Court Victoria StreetGrimsbyNorth East LincolnshireDX 707680 Grimsby 5


38/135

SECTION 5 Detailed statement of grounds

SECTION 7 Details of remedy (including any interim remedy) being sought

SECTION 8 Other applications

SECTION 6 Aarhus Convention claim

The matter concerns a case stated appeal against an order granted for Council Tax in the Magistrates' court.Recognizance has been set at a level denying my access to justice. The 500 sum has been set despite my qualifying forremission of the Magistrates court fee. This was raised with the justices' Clerk and has gone to date unaddressed as hasa Pre-Action letter sent on 29 April 2013. Even highlighting this, no apparent consideration has been made to take mymeans into account, and suggestion to reopen the case under the provision of S.142 of the MCA 1980 to rectify themistake and set aside the liability order has similarly gone unanswered. It has also been suggested that the localauthority apply under section 82 of the Local Government Act 2003 to have the liability order quashed. The Clerk to thejustices failed to respond and the Council stated it would not be applying to the court to have the liability order quashed.

Mandatory order under Section 111(6) of the Magistrates' Court Act 1980 requiring the justices to state a case.

Extending the time limit for filing the claim form.

The claim is being filed out of time because I was led to believe the Magistrates' court were addressing my queries(including suggestions of alternative remedies). However, it became apparent after several prompts that I wasunlikely to get a response other than acknowledgement of my correspondence.


39/135

SECTION 9 Statement of facts relied on

1) Notice to state a case for an appeal to the High Court, served on Grimsby Magistrates' Court on 22 November 2012 inaccordance with the Criminal Procedure Rules, rule 64.2 (see enclosed), in relation to 2 November 2012 hearing.

2) Written acknowledgement received from Deputy Justices' Clerk of Grimsby Magistrates' Court, dated 22 November2012.

3) No further contact was made by the court until January 14, 2013. Attempts to make contact with the Deputy Justices'

Clerk dealing with the appeal prompted this contact. At this point it transpired that Deputy Justices' Clerk had left theservice at the end of 2012. The Legal Team Manager stated he would try to find out what was happening with theapplication and update as soon as possible.

4) The matter had been put in the hands of the Justices' Clerk for Humber & South Yorkshire (Doncaster Magistrates'court), who on 24 January 2013 advised that the Justices require recognizance to be entered into in the sum of 500 andoutlining conditions of recognizance (letter ref; 24 January 2013).

5) Email to Doncaster Magistrates' court (Grimsby's Legal Team Manager and Council Copied in) to raise queriesconcerning the Justices' Clerk's correspondence. Highlighted that recognizance set in my particular financialcircumstances would deny access to justice. Suggested alternative remedies, i.e., reopen the case under S.142 of theMagistrates' Courts Act 1980 to set aside the liability order, or for the council, under section 82 of the Local GovernmentAct 2003, to apply to have the order quashed (letter ref; 5 February, email, 6 February 2013)

6) Reply from Council stating it was not prepared to apply to the Magistrates Court to quash the liability order as it wascorrectly obtained for the outstanding balance due at that time (letter ref; 8 February 2013)

7) Letter to council explaining that according to the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992, theliability order was not correctly obtained as the application should have ceased at the point where the aggregate of thesum outstanding and an amount equal to the costs reasonably incurred by the authority was paid (ref; letter 14 February2013).

8) Administrative Court Office contacted to make enquiries about an order of mandamus requiring justices to state acase for an appeal to the High Court (letter ref; 23 March 2013)

9) Pre-Action letter sent. (letter ref; 29 April 2013)

Detail included:

".....Please acknowledge receipt of this letter and provide either a response addressing the issues Ive raised orcertificate stating that my application has been refused explaining the reason.

If a response is not forthcoming within 14 days I will take it that the justices are both refusing to state the case and togive a certificate and will apply for permission to bring judicial review proceedings for a mandatory order requiring theCourt to state a case...."

10) To date, there has been no response from the Justices' Clerk in relation to 5 February or 29 April 2013 letters.Similarly, there has been no response from the council to the 14 February 2013 letter.


40/135

SECTION 10 Supporting documents


41/135

HM Courts&Tribunals Service

PROTECT

Our ref:

Your ref:

Dear Sir

Re: Application for Judicial Review

Administrative Court Office at LeedsLeeds Combined Court

1 Oxford Row

Leeds

West Yorkshire

LS1 3BG

DX703016 Leeds 6

T: 0113 306 2578

F: 0113 306 2581

E: administrativecourtoffice.leeds

@hmcts.x.gsi.gov.uk

www.justice.gov.uk

04 June 2013

Thank you for your application for permission to apply for Judicial Review received in this

office on 3 June 2013.

You application has been returned as it cannot be issued for the following reason(s):

o As your application has been lodged out of time beyond the time period set out

in the Civil Procedure Rules (see CPR 54.5 promptly; and in any event notlater than 3 months after the grounds to make the claim first arose) it will be

necessary for you to make an application seeking an extension of time to lodge

your application. This application must be made in section 8 of the claim formsetting out the reasons in support of your application. It seems that you arechallenging the Courts letter dated 24 January 2013, therefore this should have

been filed by 24 April 2013.

o Your fee remission cannot be approved yet as the court requires more evidence toprove your entitlement. Page 8 of the guidance booklet Court Fees Do I have to

pay them?explains exactly what evidence is required by the court when applying

under remission 2 or 3.

Please attend to the above matters before returning your application and

accompanying documents which we have enclosed with this letter. Please note, we

have not retained any copies of your documents, so you will need to re-submit yourentire application. I am very sorry for any inconvenience this may cause you.

Yours sincerely,

Miss G Downing

For Court Manager


42/135

.,

M Courts

Tribunals Service

PROTECT

Administrative Court Office at Leeds

Leeds Combined Court

1 Oxford Row

Leeds

West Yorkshire

LS13BG

OX 703016 Leeds 6

T 0113 306 2578

F 0113 306 2581

E administrativecourtoffice.leeds

@hmcts.x.gsi.gov.uk

www.justice.gov.uk

Our ref: CO/7281/2013

Your ref: In Person

Dear Sir / Madam,

Re. The Queen on the application of I

MAGISTRATES COURT

Your claim for judicial review has been issued this day.

13 June 2013

versus GRIMSBY

You will need to serve all documents on the Defendant [and Interested Party/ies]. Please

note that service must be effected within 7 days of the date this letter, and a Certificate of

Service lodged with the Court. Failure to comply with this requirement may result in the

file in these proceedings being closed.

When serving the claim on the Defendant [and any interested party(ies)], please

ensure you enclose a copy of attached notice.

Please also note our Case Reference number CO/7281/2013 which should be quoted

whenever you communicate with the Court.

Your attention is drawn to Part 54 of the Civil Procedure Rules and its accompanying

Practice Directions, which give guidance on future procedural matters.

*** IMPORTANT INFORMATION - PLEASE READ ***

Please note that it is the Court s practice to destroy all copy documentation and any

bundles immediately following the conclusion of these proceedings, and to retain original

documentation on the Court file. We therefore strongly advise you to keep copies of

any documents that you submit to the Court.

If you wish to have your copy documentation or bundles returned to you, you must notify

the Court, in writing, at your earliest convenience, and prior to the conclusion of

these proceedings, specifying whether you intend to come to the Court and collect your

documentation, or whether you would like the Court to return it to you by post or by DX.

Please note that for reasons of cost, the Court will not return documentation by Recorded

Delivery or Registered post.

If we do not receive such notification, the Court will assume that you do not wish to have

your copy documentation or bundles returned, and they will be destroyed as confidential

waste.

The Administrative Court Off ice will not accept service via email. When using the above email address it should be

noted that mail sent after 4.30 p.m. may not be opened until 9.00 a.m. on the following working day. Court users should

not send confidential or restricted information over the public Internet.


43/135

Please be aware that if you request copies of documentation kept on the Court file, a fee

is applicable under paragraph 4.1 a) and b) of the Civil Proceedings Fees Amendment)

Order 2009 5.00 for first 10 pages, and 0.50 for each further page).

Yours fJ ai

.fUIIY,

i

Miss G Downing

For Court Manager

Page 2


44/135

Page 1 of 1

Xxx

From: "Xxx" To: "Crocken, Karen" Sent: 18 June 2013 14:50Subject: Application to State a Case - Grimsby Magistrates' Court / Judicial Review (Mandatory order to

state a case)

Dear Ms Crocken

In relation to an application for Judicial Review for a Mandatory Order to state a case for an appeal to the HighCourt I wish to serve the sealed copy claim form and accompanying documents.

I therefore ask if the court are willing to accept service by email, and if so, require it specifying the address towhich it must be sent and whether there are any limitations to accept service, for example, format or maximumsize of attachments that may be received.

If service by e-mail is acceptable please indicate whether it would be a requirement to also serve a hard copy.

Yours sincerely

X. Xxxxx

Xxx

From: "Xxx" To: "Crocken, Karen" Sent: 18 June 2013 15:09Attach: Notice of service.pdf; N461 - Judicial Review - Sealed.pdf; n462-eng.pdf; Paginated bundle A.pdfSubject: Application to State a Case - Grimsby Magistrates' Court / Judicial Review (Mandatory order to

state a case)

Dear Ms Crocken

In anticipation of the courts approval to accept service by e-mail, please find attached a sealed copy ofJudicial Review claim form and accompanying documents.

Documents include:

Notice of service.pdf

N461 - Judicial Review - Sealed.pdf

n462-eng.pdf (Acknowledgement of Service - Form)

Paginated bundle A.pdf

Yours sincerely

X. Xxxxx

07/06/2016


45/135

HM Courts

Tribunals Service

PROTECT

NOTE TO DEFENDANT AND

INTERESTED PARTY IES)

Our ref: CO/7281/2013

Administrative Court Office at Leeds

Leeds Combined Court

1 Oxford Row

Leeds

West Yorkshire

LS13BG

OX 703016 Leeds 6

T 0113 306 2578

F 0113 306 2581

E administrativecourtoffice.leeds

@hmcts.x.gsi.gov.uk

www.justice.gov.uk

13 June 2013

A claim before the Administrative Court may be started administered and determined at

one of the following venues:

Royal Courts of Justice Room C315 Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2A

2LL;

Birmingham Civil Justice Centre Priory Courts 33 Bull Street Birmingham B4 60S;

Cardiff Civil Justice Centre 2 Park Street Cardiff CF10 1ET;

Leeds Combined Court Centre 1 Oxford Row Leeds LS1 3B8;

Manchester Civil Justice Centre -1 Bridge Street West Manchester M60 9DJ

This matter is currently proceeding at the Leeds Combined Court Centre. Should you

wish to seek a direction that any hearings in this matter be heard at one of the other

venues listed above you should complete lodge with the Administrative Court in Leeds

and serve on all parties to this claim a Form N464 Application for Directions as to venue

for administration and determination within 21 days of service of the claim form upon you.

There is a fee payable for such application; namely 80.00 or 45.00 if all parties named

in the claim form consent to the change of venue and their signed consent is lodged with

your Form N464.

Form N464 can be obtained from any of the Administrative Court Offices or down load

from the Ministry of Justice website at www.justice.gov.uk/aboutlhmcts/

index.htm.

For Regional Manager

The Administrative Court Office will not accept service via emai . When using the above email address it should be

noted that mail sent after 4.30 p.m. may not be opened until 9.00 a.m. on the following working day. Court users should

not send confidential or restricted information over the public Internet.


46/135

Page 1 of 1

Xxx

From: "Crocken, karen" To: "Xxx" Sent: 19 June 2013 09:23Subject: RE: Application to State a Case - Grimsby Magistrates' Court / Judicial Review (Mandatory order

to state a case)

Good morning Mr Xxxxx

I shall need to seek Legal Advice as to whether or not service can be accepted via email. I will be back intouch with you as soon as possible with an updated response

Regards

Karen

Karen Crocken

Legal Admin Team Leader - Humber & South Yorkshire ClusterDoncaster Magistrates' Court

PO BOX 49, College Road

Doncaster, DN1 3HT


Tel: 01302 347304 Fax: 01302 327906

Help save paper - do you need to print this e-mail? I am not authorised to bind the Ministry of Justice contractually, nor to make representations or other statements which may bind the Ministry ofJustice in any way via electronic means.

Xxx

From: "Xxx" To: "Crocken, Karen" Sent: 19 June 2013 09:52Subject: Re: Application to State a Case - Grimsby Magistrates' Court / Judicial Review (Mandatory order

to state a case)

Dear Ms Crocken

I decided to post them first class yesterday.

The claim form and accompanying documents have also been delivered in person at the premises of GrimsbyMagistrates' court and North East Lincolnshire Council (18/06/2013).

I need to lodge a Certificate of Service (Form N215) in the Administrative Court Office and will be doing sotoday. Due to the unusual staffing arrangements for Grimsby, I'm unsure whether the Certificate of Serviceshould be lodged in respect of documents the served at Grimsby Magistrates' court or Doncaster. I anticipatethis information may not be disclosed, and will lodge the Certificate of Service in respect of documents theserved at Grimsby Magistrates' court unless I receive advice before 3:00pm.

Yours sincerely

X. Xxxxx

07/06/2016


47/135

Certificate of service

N215Certificate of service (09.11) Crown copyright 2011

Name of court Claim No.

Name of Claimant

Name of Defendant

What documents did you serve?Please attach copies of the documents youhave not already filed with the court.

On whom did you serve?(If appropriate include their positione.g. partner, director).

by first class post or other service which provides fordelivery on the next business day

by delivering to or leaving at a permitted place

by personally handing it to or leaving it with

(.................time left, where document is other than aclaim form) (please specify)

by other means permitted by the court(please specify)

by Document Exchange

by fax machine (.................time sent, where documentis other than a claim form) (you may want to enclose a copyof the transmission sheet)

by other electronic means (.................time sent, wheredocument is other than a claim form) (please specify)

How did you serve the documents?

(please tick the appropriate box)

I believe that the facts stated in this certificate are true.

Full name

Signed Position or

office held

(Claimant) (Defendant) ('s solicitor) ('s friend) (If signing on behalf of firm or company)

Date / /

Give the address where service effected, include fax or DXnumber, e-mail address or other electronic identification

On what day didyou serve?

/ /

The date of service is / /

Being the claimant's defendants

solicitor's litigation friend

usual residence

last known residence

place of business

principal place of business

last known place of business

last known principal place of business

principal office of the partnership

principal office of the corporation

principal office of the company

place of business of the partnership/company/corporation within the jurisdiction with a connectionto claim

other (please specify)

Administrative Court Leeds CO/7281/2013

1 8 0 6 2 0 1 3

Xxxxx Xxxxxx

1 8 0 6 2 0 1 3 Grimsby Magistrates' Court

Judicial Review claim form (N461), Acknowledgement of Service (N462),

Paginated accompanying documents, Notice to Defendant and Interested Parties

Reception desk (Justices' Clerks Office) Grimsby Magistrates' Court

Grimsby Magistrates' Court, Victoria Street, Grimsby

North East Lincolnshire, DN31 1NH, DX 707680, Grimsby 5

12:00

Xxxxx Xxxxxx

2 0 1 31 9 0 6


48/135

In this context 'business day' means any day except Saturday, Sunday or a bank holiday; (under the Banking and Financial

Dealings Act 1971 in the part of the UK where service is to take place) includes Good Friday and Christmas Day.

Method of service Deemed day of service

First class post or other service which

provides for delivery on the next

business day

The second day after it was posted, left with, delivered to or collected by the

relevant service provider provided that day is a business day; or if not, the next

business day after that day

Document exchange

The second day after it was left with, delivered to or collected by the relevant

service provider provided that day is a business day; or if not, the next business

day after that day

Delivering the document to or

leaving it at a permitted address

If it is delivered to or left at the permitted address on a business day before

4.30pm, on that day; or in any other case, on the next business day after that day

Fax

If the transmission of the fax is completed on a business day before 4.30pm, on

that day; or in any other case, on the next business day after the day on whichit was transmitted

Other electronic method

If the email or other electronic transmission is sent on a business day before

4.30pm, on that day; or in any other case, on the next business day after the

day on which it was sent

Personal serviceIf the document is served personally before 4.30pm on a business day, it is

served on that day; or in any other case, on the next business day after that day

Rules relating to the service of documents are contained in Part 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules (www.justice.gov.uk)

and you should refer to the rules for information.

Calculation of the deemed day of service of documents other than the claim form (CPR 6.26)

Calculation of deemed day of service of a claim

A claim form served within the UK in accordance with Part 6 of the Civil Procedure rules is deemed to be served on

the second business day after the claimant has completed the steps required by CPR 7.5(1).


49/135

SECTION A

SECTION B

name

address

Note:

name

address

Telephone no.

E-mail address

Fax no.

name

address

Telephone no.

E-mail address

Fax no.

CO/7281/2013

Redacted

Grimsby and Cleethorpes Magistrates'Court


Redacted

Redacted


50/135

SECTION C

The defendant to this matter is a magistrates' court.

The claimant has made an application to the Justices in relation to proceedings commenced against him by North East LincolnshireCouncil (the interested party in this application for Judicial Review) for them to state a case in relation to their decision to make aliability order in respect of costs arising from the proceedings for non-payment of council tax.

In connection with that application the claimant was requested by the defendant magistrates' court in accordance with section 114 ofthe Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 to enter into a recognizance to prosecute his appeal in the High Court without delay. Statute makesprovision for this step to be taken by the court and therefore the court is perfectly entitled to seek a recognizance prior to stating acase. In seeking a recognizance the defendant court was by definition prepared to state a case as this is implicit in the statutoryprovision allowing for a recognizance to be required. That remains the position of the defendant court.

A recognizance does not require any money to be paid 'up front' unlike court fees which are required to be paid before work on anapplication is undertaken. Indeed a recognizance is but a promise that the individual who enters into the recognizance makes to paysome or all of a sum of money determined by the court in the event that he/she fails to prosecute his/her case in the High Courtwithout delay. Accordingly no money need ever be paid if the matter is pursued by the appellant in the High Court and even if theappeal were not pursued in the High Court, there would still need to be a hearing to determine whether in the fact some or all of therecognizance should be forfeit.

To date the claimant has not appeared before the defendant court to enter into a recognizance. Had he done so the question of theappropriateness of the recognizance and/or the amount could have been considered by the court.

Rather than formally responding to the claim for permission to apply for a judicial review, even though the Justices do not agree withthe claim that has been made by the claimant, in the interests of saving the Administrative Court time and public money on a matterthat is likely to reach the Administrative Court via the route of an appeal by way of case stated, the defendant court gives anundertaking that the draft case will be served upon the defendant within fourteen days of the date of this acknowledgement ofservice.

7/25/201