Councils and the Magistrates Court

[justsaynoconsent]

What gives the councils the right to side step the HMCS system and rubber stamp their own liability orders which has case law to support what the magistrates are doing is wrong? They know its wrong or they would give their names or provide their oath when asked? Is it fundamentally wrong or they just trying to be "efficient" ? According to the guidelines it definitely looks as though its wrong as when the court is asked for a claim/case number they go all shy.

ie the anonymous JP

Council tax liability orders should be signed by the magistrate/judge and people have the right to know who sit's on the judgement

“The Court is required to provide this information to the parties in the case, and any others having an interest in the case (i.e. witnesses etc.) by virtue of the judgement in the case ‘Regina v Felixstowe’ justices ex parte Leigh and another, Queens bench division c 1984/5.
Held by Lord Justice Watson that :-" There is a right to know who sits in judgement, and denial of that right is unlawful, unwarranted and inimical to the proper administration of justice, further that there is no such person known to Law as 'the anonymous JP'.”
“The practice among some Magistrates of claiming anonymity has been declared unlawful (R v Felixstowe Justices (ex parte Leigh) [1987] 1 All ER. 551, DC).
Open justice, it was said, demands that the names of those who sit in judgment should be known."

[umbongo82]

What gives the councils the right to side step the HMCS system and rubber stamp their own liability orders which has case law to support what the magistrates are doing is wrong? They know its wrong or they would give their names or provide their oath when asked? Is it fundamentally wrong or they just trying to be "efficient" ? According to the guidelines it definitely looks as though its wrong as when the court is asked for a claim/case number they go all shy.

ie the anonymous JP

Council tax liability orders should be signed by the magistrate/judge and people have the right to know who sit's on the judgement

“The Court is required to provide this information to the parties in the case, and any others having an interest in the case (i.e. witnesses etc.) by virtue of the judgement in the case ‘Regina v Felixstowe’ justices ex parte Leigh and another, Queens bench division c 1984/5.
Held by Lord Justice Watson that :-" There is a right to know who sits in judgement, and denial of that right is unlawful, unwarranted and inimical to the proper administration of justice, further that there is no such person known to Law as 'the anonymous JP'.”
“The practice among some Magistrates of claiming anonymity has been declared unlawful (R v Felixstowe Justices (ex parte Leigh) [1987] 1 All ER. 551, DC).
Open justice, it was said, demands that the names of those who sit in judgment should be known."

You're right of course they should give their names, if an application is made to the clerk by a proper applicant not by some freeman's cronie making a fool of themselves in court. The oath, no legal requirement to supply this; you've either been misinformed, misread the case law you have quoted (1987 not 1984/85) or you've just made that bit up.

The part about councils 'rubber stamping' their own liability orders, any evidence to back up this claim? Thought not.

[hurn]

The part about councils 'rubber stamping' their own liability orders, any evidence to back up this claim? Thought not.

any evidence to say they dont ? still waiting.

[umbongo82]

The part about councils 'rubber stamping' their own liability orders, any evidence to back up this claim? Thought not.

any evidence to say they dont ? still waiting.

The burden of evidence is on the claimant.

[justsaynoconsent]

morning umbongo,

without getting bogged down with other stuff and correct dates. I thought the process with a HMCS magistrates claim was that an information/complaint was laid by the claimant...then justices or clerks were to check this out and then produce a summons. Is this not correct then?

[umbongo82]

morning umbongo,

without getting bogged down with other stuff and correct dates. I thought the process with a HMCS magistrates claim was that an information/complaint was laid by the claimant...then justices or clerks were to check this out and then produce a summons. Is this not correct then?

Hi there.

No. The council issue the summons and the law allows it. This is the case for other matters not just council tax. Just trying to remember which act it's in and I'll post the link.

[tr0niks]

There may be a statute that allows council to issue summons, but that is very different to a Liability Order.

Wife had some problems with council few years ago asking for money for council tax and legal costs. Got her to do Subject Access Request for all documents. Summonses were in same format as other council documents with council phone no for enquiries.

I helped her draft letter to CEO of council to conditionally accept legal costs subject to documentary proof.

Council replied naming a Magistrates Court to contact for details.

In next letter she pointed out that there is no court listed under the name they supp lied. Also asked for case numbers and judge names for further enquiries.

Council replied with apology and correct court name but no details.

Have had no more letters in last 2 years. Conditional offer still stands so no dispute resolution needed.

[justsaynoconsent]

umbongo, you have obviously got a lot of knowledge in this area can you just help us all out with the correct procedures

"The council issue the summons and the law allows it. This is the case for other matters not just council tax. Just trying to remember which act it's in and I'll post the link."

i really cant find this link and would be grateful if you could pop the link up. thanks in advance

[umbongo82]

Sorry, totally forgotten. The case is R v Brenford Justices, ex parte Caitlin 1975.

The case between R v Brentford Justices, ex parte Catlin allowed the Magistrates’ Court to use a rubber-stamp facsimile. This judgment also allowed another person if expressly authorized to do so or, if he is subject to the control and direction of the justice, if he is acting in accordance with the established practice in the Justice’s office to use the rubber-stamp.

However, the case also stated that a complaint must be authorised by a magistrate (under Justice Clerks Rules they may also carry out this function) and the complaint must go a through a judicial process ie a clerk or magistrate must consider the complaint first prior to the issue of the summons.

----

Once the judicial process has been carried out, the council carries out the administrative side of actually issuing the summons. There is no statute, regulation or case-law that does not allow a council officer, as an authorised person, to carry out this merely administrative function, the judicial process having been carried out solely by a clerk or magistrate in them authorising the issue of a summons.

I have a pdf of the case law but I'm not sure how to attach it to the post

[justsaynoconsent]

ok i understand that the councils print off the summons that makes sense as they have the database presumably

but the complaint is made by the council to the magistrates?

who then should consider the complaint and not use this as a rubber stamping exercise

therefore how is the complaint made if the summons is issued by the council. There must be an actual agreement between the hmcs and the council to use the magistrates signature when sending out.

if the complaint is made from what is to be believed on this site there could be a hundred in a day. So does one complaint from the council cover all the summons issued in one go?

and is this lodged with the hmcs or is this all electronic as well or do the council take a list to hmcs and get them agreed in bulk? presumably this complaint would be a public document? im just trying to get my head round the fact that hmcs cant possibly check out each complaint they wouldnt have time?

cheers