[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >> Turner v Metropolitan Borough Of Bury Council & Anor [2002] EWCA Civ 133 (5 February 2002) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2002/133.html Cite as: [2002] EWCA Civ 133

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
(Mr Justice Harrison)

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2 Tuesday, 5th February 2002

1. LORD JUSTICE PILL: This is an application by Mrs Turner for permission to appeal against the refusal of the High Court (Mr Justice Harrison) to grant permission to apply for judicial review and for an extension of time.
2. The applicant gives as her address 83 Spring Lane, Radcliffe, Lancashire. She is in a dispute with the local authority, Bury Metropolitan Borough Council, which has now gone on for a considerable time. They claim that she has not been paying the appropriate sums by way of council tax. They have obtained liability orders against her. The applicant accepts the existence of those orders, but submits that the orders have arisen only because of the refusal of the authority to pay her housing benefit and council tax benefit to which she is entitled. There is no doubt that she has made applications for it. Some of these have been granted: some have been refused. Several claims were made for the period 1999 to 2000.
3. The authority made requests for information regarding the applicant's income. They requested, for example, proof of her disability living allowance and of any other income she had. They wrote requesting particulars of her accounts over a three-month period in the Halifax and Nationwide building societies. The applicant has responded by saying that her only income is the disability living allowance which she receives. The applicant has been asked to explain the source of payments of money into her accounts and also why she has not made an application for income support. They consider that the particular circumstances of this case make further enquiry necessary.
4. The legal point which arises is as to the entitlement of the authority to further information. I refer to one of their letters which the applicant has supplied to me. It is dated 28th March 2001 and refers to a claim for council tax benefit. It is written by the acting senior benefits officer, who states:

"To enable your claim to be considered, please provide the following information and return the whole letter to my office within the next four weeks.

1.Please provide copies of your latest six months statements for all bank and building society accounts that you hold.

2.On the latest claim form you stated you were in receipt of Income Support. The Benefits Agency have confirmed that they do not hold a claim for Income support from you. Please confirm if you have any income in addition to your Disability Living Allowance and provide proof of this.

3.I understand that you left 83 Spring Street last year. Please confirm the date you returned to the property.

This information is required in accordance with Regulation 63(1) of the Council Tax Benefit (General) Regulations 1992, which states, `the Authority may ask for any information in connection with a claim that it reasonably requires, in order to determine that claim. Information can take the form of certificates, documents and other written evidence. The claimant should provide the information required by the Authority within four weeks of being asked to do so.'

If you fail to provide the information requested within four weeks, then in accordance with Regulation 66(b) of the aforementioned Regulations, the Authority has no legal duty to make a formal determination in respect of your benefit application and no further action will be taken with your claim. You can make a new application at any time but benefit will only be paid from the Monday following the date the application is received in the office."

5. The applicant submits that she has supplied all the information that she was asked for. I have asked her several times where the bank statements are. She has referred only to what (in a document now supplied) is described, under the Halifax logo, as a "mini-statement". This covers a six-week period at the end of 1999 and the beginning of 2000.
6. When the matter came before Mr Justice Harrison he considered the legal point and he came to the conclusion that the authority were entitled to make the decision they made and that there was no arguable error of law on the part of the authority. At that hearing the authority were represented by counsel and a costs order was made against the applicant. She has subsequently written to the court requesting that the application to this court be dealt with on paper. Her letter is dated 18th December 2001 and is addressed to the Civil Appeals Office. It reads:

"Thank you very much for the safe receipt of the transcript and bundle. I am very grateful.

The reason that I have requested that the case is heard without presence of myself or defendant(s) is due to the cost of defendant's barrister being added to my court bill."

7. The applicant has, in the event, appeared this morning and has made oral submissions to the court, as she is entitled to do. She submits that the whole point of the authority's action is to get her house on a CPO. She claims that the authority have done criminal damage to the house, having it smashed up, and that the police have failed to take action to prevent or stop this. She submits that the whole proceedings leading to the liability order amount to a malicious prosecution by the Bury Metropolitan Borough Council. She makes particular complaint of their increasing the amount of costs which is claimed against her, for example by the instruction of counsel at the last hearing.
8. In a written submission to the court it is argued that:

"Council rules allow reasonable knowledge of income and a summary total of any savings. These have always been provided willingly.

Council have unreasonably demanded personal bank statements of other than standard rents and bills.

Council have demanded that all banks are contacted for proof of not having an account there. This is unreasonable under Council rules."

(I add, in parenthesis, that the last point is plainly not a good one. They are seeking only statements from those banks where the applicant has an account.)

9. It is submitted that the authority's demands for council tax in excess of her income, which she submits is very limited indeed, constitute harassment and are unlawful. She contends that the information she has supplied is sufficient for the purpose of determining her benefit applications. The applicant has referred to the pro forma which the authority provide to applicants and points out that there is no requirement for bank statements in that document, as distinct from a statement of the capital balance in accounts. That is expected to be filled in by the bank or building society; and I have one example of a document which the applicant has put before me where the building society (and it is not readily legible, but it looks like a Halifax building society stamp) has given the information requested on that form.
10. I understand the sense of grievance which the applicant feels in relation to the dispute between her and the Council, which she puts to the court on a broader basis than that which the court can consider upon this application. But I have to consider whether the Council have arguably erred in law in requiring that the applicant provide them with further information before they will determine her applications for housing benefit and council tax benefit. I have considered the written and the oral submissions of the applicant. I have come to the conclusion that there is no arguable error of law on their part.
11. I agree with the conclusion reached by Mr Justice Harrison. Accordingly, this application for permission to appeal is refused. Had there been an arguable case, I would have granted the extension of time which the applicant seeks.
Order: application for permission to appeal dismissed.