HM Courts & Tribunals Service

Customer Investigations Team

Post Point 10.34
102 Petty France
London
HM Courts & SW1H 9AJ

Tribunals Service Email:

ComplaintsCorres&[email protected]

Mr

Grimsby
North East Lincolnshire
DN32

6 April 2017 Our ref: 00042/165/1617

Without Prejudice

Dear Mr

Grimsby Magistrates Court

Thank you for your letter of 19 March about the way your application for a case stated
was handled by the Grimsby Magistrates Court. I am sorry that you remain dissatisfied
with the previous replies you have received. I am replying at the final stage of the
complaints process.

I have reviewed the previous responses from Mrs Watts and Mr Hopgood and having
done so I believe your complaint needs further investigation. After careful consideration
I have decided to uphold your complaint and offer you compensation for the poor level
of service that you have received. My reasons for this are as follows.

I understand that the North East Lincolnshire Council issued a summons against you
for unpaid council tax and the court hearing was set for 2 November 2012. Before the
hearing took place you paid the outstanding sum of 437.52 and also 10 towards the
costs. The court decided that you should pay the councils remaining costs of 60. On
the 21 November 2012 you applied to the court to state a case so you could appeal the
decision. An acknowledgment was sent to you on 22 November 2012 by the Deputy
Justices Clerk, Mr Draper.

You chased for a response on 28 December 2012 but your email to Mr Draper was not
delivered. You then emailed the Justices Clerk, Mrs Alison Watts, also on 28
December 2012. You received a response to your emails on 14 January 2013 from Mr
Townell confirming that he would find out what was happening with your application.
On the 24 January 2013 Mrs Watts wrote to you to confirm that the justices required
you to enter into a recognizance of 500 before they stated the case for consideration
of the High Court.

On the 5 February 2013 you wrote to the court to find out why you had been asked to
pay 500. You felt that you were being prevented access to the courts because you
could not afford this sum. The court acknowledged your letter on 6 February and
dfgdda
confirmed the matter would be brought to the attention of Mrs Watts. You chased for a
reply on 26 February and were informed on 27 February that Mrs Watts was looking
into the matter.

I note that on the 23 March 2013 you wrote to the Administrative Court Office (ACO)
telling them that you would like to apply to the High Court for an order that the justices
state the case. You were told by the ACO that you would need to apply for Judicial
Review (JR).

On the 27 March you asked the court for an update and you were informed on the
same day that the matter was receiving attention. In the absence of a response you
wrote a further letter on 29 April asking for a certificate under section 111(5) of the
MCA1980 to confirm the reasons why the justices have refused to state a case. You
explained that if you did not receive a response within 14 days you would be apply for a
JR. In the absence of a response you began the JR procedure and your application
was issued on 13 June 2013.

The courts response to your JR application was that you had not been asked to pay
the 500 upfront and that the letter dated 23 January 2013 explained that position.
However, the court agreed, in order to save public money, to prepare a draft case and
serve on the parties within 14 days. On the 24 July 2013 a draft case was dispatched
for the parties comments. You replied on 19 August 2013. I note that the council
responded on 9 September 2013.

On the 10 January 2014, and also on 13 February, you wrote to the court to ask why
the final case stated had not been sent out. On the 6 March Mrs Watts said she would
look into the matter and get back to you by the following morning. You then wrote again
on 22 April 2014 asking why you have not had a response. In the absence of a
response you raised a complaint with the Advisory Committee. I do not propose to
repeat the history of this specific complaint, but I have noted that you experienced
difficulties with the process. You escalated the matter to the Judicial Appointments &
Conduct Ombudsman (JACO) and received a final report on 23 May 2016.

On the 25 June 2016 you wrote to my team out of frustration because you were yet to
receive the case stated and this was preventing you to go to the High Court. At this
point you had waited three and half years for the case to be stated. In line with the HM
Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) complaints process my team asked the court to
investigate what had happened.

Mrs Watts wrote to you on the 22 July 2016 and acknowledge that the level of service
provided to you on occasions could have been better. She explained that the case
stated was posted to you on 19 December 2013 and that further copies were sent to
you on 20 February 2014 and 1 May 2014.

On the 26 January 2017 you emailed Ms Collins asking for a review of the complaint. I
believe that you had recently received copies of correspondence from the court file
following a Subject Access Request and had found that a number of letters had not
reached you through the post. Mr Hopgood responded to you on 22 February 2017 at
the review stage of the complaints process.

Page 2
My findings.

It is clear that you had a strong view about the costs that were awarded to the local
council on 2 November 2012. While the amount in contention was 60, it was your right
to apply to the court to state a case. The initial handling of your application was poor
because insufficient arrangements had been made to cover Mr Drapers work after he
had left the court. I am sorry that you had to wait two months before you received the
courts letter of 24 January 2013. You had a number of issues with the decision to
impose a recognizance to pay 500 and wrote to the court about this. I understand the
consequence of entering into a recognizance was that if you did not pursue your
appeal in the High Court you would have had to pay 500. If you did pursue your
appeal the 500 would not have to be paid. I cannot comment on a judicial decision but
I do consider the handling of your correspondence on the matter was very poor.

I could not find any substantial response to your letter of 5 February 2013 and I believe
this was the courts opportunity to clarify and explain the position to you. It must have
been very frustrating for you that you were not given a full reply. I am sorry that the only
way you were able to prompt a response from the court was by issuing a judicial review
application. It was at that stage that the court decided to prepare the draft case without
the need for a recognizance. It is my view that the final case stated document could
have been prepared in a timelier manner and served on the parties before the 19
December 2013.

You have said that you did not receive the courts letter of 19 December 2013 or the
additional letters sent to you on 20 February 2014 and 1 May 2014. I am not doubting
you did not receive the letters through the post. I am sorry that is the case but I have
not seen any reason to believe they were not posted to you. I have noted the courts
admission that the final case should have been sent by recorded delivery. The court is
unable to provide any evidence that this method of postage was used. Therefore I hold
the view the letter of 19 December 2013 was not sent by recorded delivery.

It is regrettable that you did not receive 10 documents through the post but, in the
absence of receiving the letters, I do appreciate why you felt you were being ignored. I
therefore understand why you made a complaint about the judiciary. After you received
the final JACO report in 2016 you reverted to the HMCTS complaints process. Again, it
is regrettable that you did not received the courts response dated 22 July 2016 but I
have not seen any reason to suggest that it was not posted to you in the normal way.

Conclusion

My conclusion is that you have experienced a very poor level of service due to the way
your correspondence had been handled. The court had a number of opportunities to
clarify the position for you and, in the absence of doing so, it caused you a lot of
frustration and inconvenience. While I am satisfied that the letters on file would have
been posted to you, it is my view that an alternative service method of the final case
stated should have been considered after your third request for a copy had been
received.

While I appreciate you were pursuing a complaint about the judiciary between 2014
and 2016, I do have to take into account the fact that you did not pursue the court for a
copy of the final case for over two years. I also appreciate the fact that you could not
pursue an appeal until the case had been stated by the magistrates court. However, I

Page 3
believe you could have contacted the High Court to explain the difficulties you were
having. In addition, I have not seen any reason why you could not have telephoned the
court to chase the final case stated document.

Overall, I believe an apology alone will not be sufficient in recognition of the poor level
of service that you received. I would therefore like to offer you the sum of 375 in
recognition of the poor handling of your application and subsequent correspondence. I
would also like to offer you a further sum of 375 to apologise for the frustration and
inconvenience that you experienced.

If you would like to accept the total sum of 750 please let me know in writing (by email
is fine) and I will arrange payment to you. If you would prefer a bank transfer please
provide me with your bank details. Please allow 20 working days for the money to
reach you after I have received your acceptance.

If you do not consider that my reply has dealt with your complaint satisfactorily, you can
ask a Member of Parliament to refer your case to the Parliamentary and Health Service
Ombudsman (the Ombudsman). By law the Ombudsman can only look at complaints
about UK government departments and agencies if they have been referred by an MP.
Please fill out the form on the Ombudsmans website www.ombudsman.org.uk/making-
complaint first and then pass it to an MP. Please be aware that there are time limits for
the Ombudsman to look into complaints and they are investigated at the PHSOs
discretion. You can find your local MP at findyourmp.parliament.uk.

Yours sincerely

Richard Redgrave
Head of Customer Investigations

Page 4
 Page 1 of 2

From: " "< @gmail.com>

To: "Maione, Tony" <[email protected]>
Cc: <[email protected]>; "Wilson, Christine 5531
"<[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
Sent: 12 January 2017 17:57
Attach: Case stated application missing docs.pdf
Subject: Application to magistrates' court to quash liability order

Dear Mr Maione

Re: Application to magistrates' court to quash liability order

I write in reference to my email which was acknowledged by yourself on 5 January 2017

regarding undelivered documents in an application to the High court. I eventually obtained an unsigned copy
of a key document on 3 January 2017 (over 3 years after it appears to have been produced), presumably
prompted by involvement of my MP and Parliamentary Ombudsman.

The application is a case stated appeal with North East Lincolnshire Council (NELC) named the 'Respondent'.
I have written confirmation from the court that by 13 January 2017 I will receive the signed 'case' which I
intend lodging with the Administrative Office.

With reference to a Council Tax liability hearing on 30 October 2015 and subsequent complaint
(NEL/1172/1516) which escalated to the Local Government Ombudsman, this is yet more evidence that my
appeal to the High Court had never been withdrawn and the Magistrates' court granted a court order
erroneously.

NELC succeeded in persuading the Magistrates' court that the council correctly allocated monies to a sum
which was suspended pending the outcome of my High Court appeal on the basis that I had withdrawn the
case and the sum no longer suspended.

Attached is a document containing a number of relevant correspondence arranged chronologically spanning

the period of the undelivered letters (since obtained) and positioned in context. This, and information already
held by the council should be enough to satisfy the magistrates' court that the liability order should not have
been made. It is therefore a reasonable expectation that the council apply in accordance regulation 36A of the
Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 to have the order quashed. When the council
was previously asked to do this (See ANNEX A) the request was unsuccessful.

NELC should also recognise that those unfortunate enough to find themselves caught up in these matters are
subjected to time consuming and destructive disputes which are completely disproportionate to the issues
they concern. A resolution should therefore be sought at the earliest opportunity and not be allowed to
continue indefinitely. The Council has a responsibility to put right its errors and adequately compensate for
them, taking further into consideration the gross inconvenience caused when protracted over such lengthy
periods of time.

If the Magistrates' court were to quash the liability order granted on 30 October 2015 then the 60 costs
added in September 2015 would have been invalid and require removing from my account. The misallocated
payment of 60 would require reallocating to the 2015/16 account and the disputed costs would remain
suspended until the High Court appeal had concluded. Lastly, the 211 total outstanding on various
accounts would be reduced to 91 (final instalment of 2015/16 account) which is an amount I do not dispute
and would settle without fear of payment being allocated wrongly.

Yours sincerely

20/05/2017
 Page 2 of 2

ANNEX A

Excerpt from 26 January 2016 letter (Formal Complaint NEL/1172/1516)

"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......."

20/05/2017
 Page 1 of 1

From: "Tony Maione (NELC)" <[email protected]>

To: " "< @gmail.com>
Cc: <[email protected]>; "Wilson, Christine 5531
"<[email protected]>; <[email protected]>; "Emma
Finch (NELC)" <[email protected]>; "Eve Richardson-Smith (NELC)"
<[email protected]>
Sent: 13 January 2017 09:28
Subject: RE: Application to magistrates' court to quash liability order

Dear Mr ,

Please be advised that, with effect from 3 January 2017, I started a secondment from the Council to its
regeneration partner, Engie which has an initial duration of three months.

For the duration of this secondment I authorised the Councils Deputy Monitoring Officer, Mrs Eve
Richardson-Smith, to carry out the relevant functions. I have copied Mrs Richardson-Smith into this email
along with Emma Finch who is a legal support officer at the Council.

A substantive response to your email below, receipt of which is acknowledged, will be provided by or on
behalf of Mrs Richardson-Smith.

Regards

Tony Maione

20/05/2017
 Page 1 of 1

From: "Res - Customer Services" <[email protected]>

To: < @gmail.com>
Cc: <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
Sent: 26 January 2017 08:18
Subject: FW: Application to magistrates' court to quash liability order

Dear Mr

Thank you for your latest correspondence regarding this matter. To confirm North East
Lincolnshire Council stands by the action taken and will not be undertaking any further
investigation.

Yours sincerely on behalf of North East Lincolnshire Council

Eve Richardson-Smith LLB

Legal Team Manager & Deputy Monitoring Officer

From: " "< @gmail.com>

To: "Res - Customer Services" <[email protected]>
Cc: <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
Sent: 26 January 2017 11:27
Subject: Re: Application to magistrates' court to quash liability order

Dear Eve Richardson Smith

Stage 2 independent review

Your response is entirely unsatisfactory. Firstly I have not asked the Council to undertake an investigation on
account of one being unnecessary, and secondly, there is nothing to support the Council's decision.

The council has been provided overwhelming evidence that it pursued Council Tax recovery through the
Magistrates' court when it shouldn't have.

The simplest way to remedy this is for the Council to apply to the court to have the liability order quashed.

I understand that an application to the court under regulation 36A of the Council Tax Regulations can only be
made by the local authority. However, that doesn't warrant the authority using its discretion irresponsibly
where there is no dispute about the facts. If the person with overall responsibility for this decision continues to
leave the matter unresolved (knowing the serious consequences) then there is absolutely no doubt
whatsoever that the person is unfit for public office.

Yours sincerely

20/05/2017
 Page 1 of 1

From: " "< @gmail.com>

To: "Res - Customer Services" <[email protected]>
Cc: <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
Sent: 03 February 2017 12:36
Subject: Re: Application to magistrates' court to quash liability order

Dear Sir/Madam

I should have had acknowledgement of this complaint by 28 January 2017. According to North East
Lincolnshire Council's Corporate Feedback Policy (see para 7.12) a complaint escalated to stage two should
be acknowledged within 2 working days.

https://www.nelincs.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Corporate-Feedback-Policy.pdf

Yours sincerely

From: "Res - Customer Services" <[email protected]>

To: < @gmail.com>
Cc: <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
Sent: 07 February 2017 13:12
Subject: RE: Application to magistrates' court to quash liability order

Dear Mr

I refer you to the response provided to you on 26th January 2017 confirming that North East
Lincolnshire Council will not be undertaking any further investigation into this matter. For
clarity, no further acknowledgement or response will be provided to any correspondence of
a similar nature regarding the same issues.

Yours sincerely on behalf of North East Lincolnshire Council

Eve Richardson-Smith LLB

Legal Team Manager & Deputy Monitoring Officer

20/05/2017