In the High Court of Justice Administrative Court Between Appellant and North East Lincolnshire Council Respondent

Case Stated by Justices in the County of Lincolnshire, acting in and for the Local Justice Area of Grimsby and Cleethorpes in respect of their adjudication as a Magistrates' Court sitting at Grimsby.

CASE

1. On 10 October 2012 a complaint was laid against the appellant on behalf of the respondent that for the period 1 April 2012 to 31 March 2013 at Grimsby in the County of Lincolnshire he was a person who was liable to pay the sum of 437.52, the balance of council tax he owed arising from his occupation of , , Grimsby, and application was therefore made to the court for a liability order to secure payment of that sum in accordance with regulation 34 of the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992. 2. The court heard the complaint on 2 November 2012. The court did not hear evidence in the matter as the appellant admitted the following facts:a) The appellant was liable for the amount of council tax, namely 437.52, claimed against him by the respondent for the period 1 April 2012 to 31 March 2013. b) The appellant had by the time of the court hearing paid the sum due to the respondent in respect of the outstanding council tax that was claimed by the respondent.

c) The appellant was liable to pay an amount in respect of the costs of the respondent in bringing proceedings before the court d) The claim for costs in respect of the proceedings made by the respondent on the face of the summons served upon the appellant was in the sum of 70.00. e) The appellant had by the time of the hearing paid 10.00 to the respondent in respect of the costs. f) The appellant had not paid the full amount of the costs requested by the respondent and did not intend so to do so.

3. The following is a short statement of the representations made to us by the parties:a) The respondent stated that the amount of the claim for costs was the same as that sought in all similar proceedings commenced by the respondent, a sum which had previously been notified to the Grimsby and Cleethorpes Magistrates' Court under cover of correspondence dated 4 March 2011 for cases arising on or after 1 April 2011. b) The level of costs sought by the respondent did not exceed the prescribed amount described in regulation 34(8) of the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992.
c) The level of costs sought by the respondent in the proceedings was within the range of costs sought by other local authorities in similar proceedings for unpaid council tax d) The level of costs sought had been calculated to reflect both administrative and legal costs in bringing the proceedings to court, including the court fees. e) The appellant referred to correspondence he had had with the respondent in which he asserted that the level of costs claimed by the council was a means of raising additional revenue from the respondent.

f) The appellant referred to the respondent's 2011 budget and financial plan in which a majority was stated to be in favour of

increased charges for summonses rather than charging for other council services such as replacement bins or garden waste collections. 4. It was contended by the appellant that:a) The level of costs requested by the respondent in the proceedings was disproportionate to and not commensurate with the true cost of bringing the proceedings before the court in that it was much higher than the actual cost. b) The reason the respondent sought such a high level of costs in the proceedings was as a means for the respondent to raise additional revenue for the respondent.

5. It was contended by the respondent that:a) The level of costs sought in the proceedings was an amount that had previously been advised by the respondent to the court that would be sought by the respondent in each case in proceedings to recover unpaid council tax. This amount had been claimed in all cases before the court since that notification. b) The sum requested was not a means to raise additional revenue for the respondent but a reflection of the broad average costs of bringing any individual case for unpaid council tax before the court.

6. We were not referred to any case authority.

7. We were of the following opinion:a) We recognise that in all cases where costs are claimed we always have a discretion as to whether to order them, and if so, in what sum. Although the appellant admitted the matter of complaint and costs would therefore normally follow the event, the fact that the respondent asked for the normal amount of amount of costs in this case did not prevent us from reducing the amount or refusing to make an order for costs at all.
3

b) The respondent, as with other council tax billing authorities, has taken a broad approach to the question of requests for costs and has sought a similar amount in this case as with all others in the in the same court list. In normal circumstances this is appropriate, although we accept we must look at each case individually. This means that the respondent could in principle have sought a greater amount of costs in an individual case where more costs were incurred, subject to any limitations set by regulations, had it chosen to do so. c) The amount of costs requested in all cases before us for nonpayment of council tax was a sum advised to the court in writing by the respondent well over a year before the current proceedings against the appellant were commenced, and the court in other such proceedings in the intervening period has considered that level of costs to be appropriate by making orders in favour of the respondent in that sum. That fact of course did not prevent us from considering the level of costs requested in the proceedings against the appellant. d) The respondent had to pay a court fee in respect of every application for a liability order as well as cover the other administrative and legal costs of bringing the proceedings, and we therefore considered 70.00 was an amount reasonably incurred by the respondent in making the application before the court and obtaining the liability order. e) On the basis of the information presented to us by both the appellant and the respondent, the contention that the amount claimed by the respondent was in the nature of general revenue raising by the respondent did not succeed and we were satisfied that it was instead an amount to cover the cost of bringing council tax enforcement proceedings to court. f) This case had no features to distinguish it significantly from other cases in our list to suggest to us that a different level of costs should be considered in this case. g) The appellant should pay the full amount of the costs sought. We could not see that it was just to order the appellant to pay less or we would have so ordered.

8. We ordered that 60.00 costs requested by the respondent should be paid by the appellant in the proceedings and made a liability order against him to enable that sum to be recovered by the respondent.

QUESTION

9. The question for the opinion of the High Court is:Were we entitled in the circumstances of this case to order payment of the full amount of the costs requested by the respondent and make the liability order which followed as a consequence thereof?

Dated the 22 day of July 2013

Mr Mr

JP JP

Justices' Clerk for and on behalf of the Justices adjudicating.