Your complaint, our decision:

review request form

Please use this form to ask us to review our decision. The grounds on which you can ask
us to review our decision are limited. It is important that you read the information below
before filling in this form.

We will not accept a request for a review just because you disagree with the
outcome of your complaint.

Asking for a review

You can only ask for a review if you consider that:

> We made our decision based on important evidence that contains facts that
were not accurate, and you can show this using readily available information.

> You have new and relevant information that was not previously available and
which affects the decision we made. We may share the new information with
the organisation you complained about, so they can consider it before we make
a decision on your review request.

We must receive this form with your reasons and any new documents, within one
month of our decision.

What happens next?

We will write to confirm we have received your form and paperwork within 3 days.
We aim to give you a full response within 20 working days. If we need more time to
consider your request we will write to tell you this.

Your complaint, our decision; review request form V2 November 2016

Your contact details

Full name: Mr

Address:



, Grimsby, North East Lincolnshire
Postcode: DN32



Daytime phone number(s):
Email address:


@gmail.com
LGO Reference number: 17 003 081

1 - I think your decision was based on inaccurate information.

From the decision statement you received about your complaint, please provide
clear details of all the points you feel contain facts that were not accurate. Where
possible please provide copies of information to support this.

2 - I have new and relevant information.

If you have new and relevant information that you believe affects the decision we
made, you need to tell us about this. Please use the box below to explain why you
feel this new information is relevant. Where possible please provide copies of
information to support this.

1. The Councils Statement of Truth and supporting papers which were identified as 'NELC1' to
'NELC13' provide conclusive evidence that the fault which has led to an inordinate amount of
injustice could have been avoided had the council not made the error it made before it took recovery
action in the Magistrates court.

2. The letter referred to in paragraph 7 the Ombudsmans final decision (see below) did not give a
credible reason for the Council to have believed that the costs were no longer being disputed, thus
justifying its decision to lift the suspension of the costs.

The Council then saw a letter which Mr X sent to the court in November 2013. The letter
said, ...please take this as formal notice that I am withdrawing the judicial review claim.
The Council lifted the hold but did not take any recovery action.
 The Ombudsman evidently referred to the Councils Witness Statement to assist his decision making.
The relevant paragraphs of that Witness Statement (see below) provides overwhelming evidence that
the Council had lifted the suspension of the costs on the bases that it believed the withdrawn appeal
related to a review of the costs.

68. The Council is aware that the defendant has taken matters further with regards to
disputing the 60.00 costs incurred from November 2012.

69. Correspondence received from the defendant as of 20th November 2013 stated that he had
withdrawn his application for the Judicial review of the costs (NELC12)

70. Given this the Council no longer held action in attempting to recover the outstanding
amount.

..

73. As of the letter from the Defendant regarding his withdrawal of the Judicial review North
East Lincolnshire Council had no further reason to believe that the costs were being
disputed and the allocation of unspecified amounts was made in accordance with Peters
V Anderson.

3. The appeal disputing the costs was a Case Stated appeal, not a judicial review claim which the
November 2013 letter referred to. There were two separate High Court matters, which the Council
was well aware of; one a Case Stated appeal disputing the costs and the other, a judicial review claim
for a mandatory order.

4. The letter, therefore gave no cause to lead the Council to believe that the High Court appeal (case
stated) challenging the summons costs had been withdrawn. The judicial review claim, which was a
separate matter from the application to state a case for an appeal challenging the costs, was merely
the vehicle used to address the difficulties faced by the Magistrates in stating the draft case. The
judicial review claim therefore was for a mandatory order, not a 'review of the costs' and so the case
stated appeal challenging the summons costs had never been withdrawn.

5. The November 2013 letter was in response to the Administrative Court's recommendation to
withdraw the judicial review claim as the process had prompted the Magistrates to produce a draft
case in respect of the appeal for which the costs had been suspended (Case Stated appeal) and
deemed there no longer a need for further action on their part as the process of stating a case was
underway. As far as the parties were aware, the Case Stated appeal was back on track and could
theoretically progress to the next stage which was in any event clear from the context of the
November 2013 letter. The subsequent letters and emails referred to in my comments on the draft, re
 Pursuing appeal correspondence, made it categorically clear that the appeal was being pursued if
there was any genuine previous misunderstanding by the Council.

6. The Council erroneously lifting the suspension of the costs can not simply be attributed to a
misunderstanding arising from the withdrawal of the claim for a mandatory order. The exhibits
supporting the Witness Statement provided conclusive evidence that Councils claim that it had no
further reason to believe that the costs were being disputed was dishonest. Exhibit NELC12 (see
appended) contained the contents of the 20 November 2013 letter withdrawing the claim for a
mandatory order and the Administrative Court's response dated 25 November. The letters were not
copies of the original; it can be confirmed beyond reasonable doubt that the contents were obtained
from the same source that recorded publicly everything relevant to the matter. The source was a
public help forum dealing with council tax issues, the same forum which the Council had sourced the
contents of another of its exhibits.

7. The letters contained in exhibit NELC12 had been redacted and matched the entries that were posted
on the public forum (see appended screen shots). The forum is the only place from which those
letters could be sourced in that redacted form. The characteristics of the letters from which the
Council formed its view that the appeal had been withdrawn were identical to the forum posts.

8. The Council had evidently relied on the website to keep abreast of developments as all
correspondence connected with the proceedings (albeit redacted) where conveniently in one place. It
would therefore have been informed from the regular updates posted that the case stated appeal was
still being pursued. Even if the forum was not regularly consulted it is enough that the Council had
done on the occasion it learned that the mandatory order had been withdrawn that its claim was
dishonest, i,e. that it believed the costs were no longer being disputed. The crux of the matter is that
the post from which the content was sourced (see appended screen shots) was accompanied with the
commentary, below, which is proof in itself:

Back almost to square one.

Although the judicial review claim for mandatory order was not entirely successful in
mandating the Magistrates' Court to state the case (other than the draft), it would never have
been known there was a possibility to negotiate the terms of a recognizance at the hearing. It
took this process to prompt a response from the Justices at Grimsby Magistrates' Court.

The next move then will be to arrange to appear before the Magistrates Court to agree terms
of a recognizance.

9. The Councils fault was to misallocate payment to a disputed sum based upon a dishonest claim
which has been proved conclusively. Clearly if the Council had not been at fault the court
proceedings could have been avoided. Crucially the Ombudsman may remedy distress caused by
 receiving a wrongly issued summons, regardless of whether the complainant attended court (City of
York Council, decision ref: 16 014 507).

Conclusion

10. On one level it is immaterial to my complaint whether dishonesty had been involved or that there
may have been a genuine misunderstanding by the Council. The complaint concerned the Council
refusing to take the appropriate steps in remedying its mistake which it had undeniably made. The
provision enabling magistrates' courts the power to quash liability orders where there is no dispute
about the facts has been purposely enacted for these circumstances. However, the Council must make
the application, and for refusing to even consider doing so is at fault.

11. On another level the Councils dishonesty is very relevant because the Ombudsman has expressed
that he will not investigate the Councils decision not to ask the court to quash the 2015 liability
order on the basis that there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The review request
should have no trouble satisfying the Ombudsman that there is sufficient evidence of fault by the
Council.

Your complaint, our decision; review request form V2 November 2016

Sending your request

Please email this form to the Investigator who dealt with your complaint, or post it to:
Local Government Ombudsman, PO Box 4771, Coventry CV4 0EH

Your complaint, our decision; review request form V2 November 2016

 Grimsby Magistrates Court

Claimant
North East Lincolnshire Council

Defendant

This is exhibit NELC12 as referred to in the

Application for Liability Order
Administrative Court Office at Leeds
Leeds Combined Court
1 Oxford Row
Leeds

Your ref: CO/7281/2013

20 November 2013

Dear Sir/Madam

Re: The Queen on the application of [.................................................. .......] v GRIMSBY MAGISTRATES COURT

I'm asked to advise the court whether I will be withdrawing this judicial review claim as it deems there
to be no longer a need for further action on the part of the High Court.

Representations have been made upon the draft case though I've neither entered into a recognizance
nor since been asked to. The purpose of the judicial review claim was, I believed, to mandate the
Justices to state the case without being subject to terms of a recognizance.

I had viewed that agreeing such terms would pose risks, potentially greater than subjecting myself to
forfeiture of the proposed sum if, for example, to avoid a penalty the appeal was prosecuted
knowing that the stated case omitted the points in law I was questioning. In terms of successfully
appealing the decision I would be disadvantaged from the outset and disproportionately exposed to
the financial risks of incurring costs. It could be argued that in these circumstances, requiring
recognizance would either be denying my access to justice or unduly burdening me financially, as
presently I'm in receipt of no income.

Although the claim prompted service of the draft case, it still remains that delivery of the final signed
case has, in accordance with CrimPR Part 64, rule 64.3(7), overrun by approximately two months.
Presumably then, the agreement detailed in the acknowledgement of service was only to serve the
draft case.

I am therefore in the same position now as I was before the claim for a mandatory order as it seems
the Justices will unlikely deliver the signed case unless recognizance is entered into.

However, where my queries with the Magistrates' court went unanswered, the judicial review process
succeeded in drawing from the Clerk that if I had appeared before the court to enter into a
recognizance, its appropriateness and/or the amount could have been considered. This is exactly the
information I was seeking and would never have obtained had I not proceeded with this claim for
judicial review.

Knowing as I do now, that a possibility exists to negotiate terms which are mutually acceptable, it
seems arranging to appear before the court to enter into a recognizance is now appropriate.
In light of the Justices expressing regard for the Administrative Court's time and public money, it
would also seem appropriate, if, whilst appearing before the Magistrates' Court to agree terms of a
recognizance, I also seek agreement to terms of an order that the court consider the matter on the
papers and that there be no order as to costs, as the case involves a matter of general public
importance.

After considering the options that appear available to me now, please take this as formal notice that I
am withdrawing this judicial review claim.

HM Courts & Tribunals Service

Administrative Court Office at Leeds

Leeds Combined Court
1 Oxford Row
Leeds
West Yorkshire
LS1 3BG

25 November 2013

Our ref: CO/7281/2013

Your ref:

Dear Sir/Madam

Re The Queen on the application of [.................................................. .......] versus GRIMSBY MAGISTRATES

COURT

I am writing to inform you that your letter in the above case was received by this office on 22/11/2013.

Unless you hear from us within four weeks from the date of this letter, you can assume that your letter
to withdraw has been accepted and the Court file has been closed.

Please note that all copy documents in the above matter will be destroyed immediately following the
closure of the case, unless you have already notified the court that you would like them returned.

If you require any further information, please contact the Administrative Court Office General Office on
0113 306 2578.
 Screen shots

Two internet forum posts corresponding to North East Lincolnshire Councils Witness Statement
Exhibit NELC12