[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions >> Lawson v Scarborough Magistrates' Court [2010] EWHC 1767 (Admin) (24 May 2010) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2010/1767.html Cite as: [2011] RVR 75, [2010] EWHC 1767 (Admin)

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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT

		Leeds Combined Court 1 Oxford Row Leeds West Yorkshire LS1 3BG
		24th May 2010

JUDGE KAYE QC:

1. On 13 October 2009 information was laid before Scarborough Magistrates' Court in respect of unpaid council tax covering the period 1 April 2009 to 31 March 2010 in respect of a local council taxpayer by the name of Mr David Brice Lawson. A summons was issued in respect of the amount of unpaid council tax in the sum of £600 and Mr Lawson was ordered to appear before the Scarborough Magistrates' Court on 9 November 2009. On that occasion the Scarborough Magistrates' Court made a liability order under Regulation 34 of the Council Tax Administration and Enforcement Regulations 1992 in the sum of the arrears of tax for £600 plus an additional £90 for costs, making a total of £690.PRIVATE 
2. In giving their decision, according to Mr Lawson, as he told me today, they relied on the letter of the law. Mr Lawson applied to judicially review that decision of the Scarborough Magistrates' Court finding him liable for council tax in that sum. The claim was lodged on 11 February 2010. It was in fact two days outside the three months time limit specified under the Civil Procedure Rules 54.5.
3. The matter came before His Honour Judge Langan QC on 5 March 2010 and he refused permission to appeal. Mr Lawson has renewed his application and has today appeared before me.
4. As I understand him, and having read the papers in the case, Mr Lawson effectively renews the arguments he adduced before the Magistrates as to why he should not pay: first of all, that the Magistrates were wrong to apply the letter of the law whilst discounting the question of intent; secondly, that his ability to pay was directly related to central government's decision to cause reduction in base rates to such an extent that he, a pensioner and reliant upon savings, had no means to pay; and thirdly, the decision was in breach of the claimant's Article 6 rights under the European Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. I hope I am doing Mr Lawson no injustice when I say it seems to me that his arguments fall under these three claims or heads.
5. What it really seems to amount to, as I understand it, is this. As a pensioner in assessing his ability to pay council tax, Mr Lawson has his pension and capital savings all taken into account under the pensions credit scheme. He says that was duly worked through at a time when interest rates were much higher than they are now, something in the region of five per cent or even more. And when his pension credit was worked out for the purposes of determining amongst other things the amount of council tax he should pay, those interest rates were at those levels. In short, he continues to argue that since then interest rates have come down quite considerably to the point where they are now 0.5 per cent, or where base rates are in the region of 0.5 to one per cent. There has, he says, been no correlating reduction or, putting it another way, no reassessment of his pension credits and the result is he continues to pay the same rate of council tax based upon the same assumptions when interest rates were higher than is the case in fact today. The result is that the gap between what he has and what he is assumed to have for the purposes of paying council tax has widened quite considerably.
6. It would be otiose and useless for me to say I have considerable sympathy for Mr Lawson in his predicament, but my sole question is whether or not he ought to be given permission to bring an application for judicial review of the magistrates' decision.
7. Mr Lawson has taken me through an interesting history of his dealings with the previous local councils in the case of Tottenham Magistrates v Lawson [1995] and also other cases. He has also sought to place reliance on the Unfair Contract Terms Act and the requirement for reasonableness and the fact that the law must be based on principle (rather than on the letter of the law), and also questions of misrepresentation.
8. It seems to me these latter points, the Unfair Contract Terms Act, misrepresentation and so on, have nothing to do with his point. His point is simply (but no doubt sincerely) a deep feeling of unfairness and no doubt it may be considerably justified, but that it seems to me to be a matter to take up with other interested groups; with the Department of Work and Pensions, his new MP or whoever. I have to decide whether or not the decision made by the Magistrates was arguably incorrect or not.
9. It seems it me that the relevant regulation, which as I say is Regulation 34 of the Council Tax Administration and Enforcement Regulations 1992, required the court to make an order if it was satisfied that the sum was become payable and had not been paid. The question of whether or not interest rates had gone up or gone down in the meantime or the question of intent were not relevant considerations. So far as I am aware the claimant did not dispute that the sum was owed. His point was that his pension credits ought to have been adjusted to take account of the differing fall in interest rates. That being so, the Magistrates' Court could only come to the conclusion that they did, that the tax was due, was unpaid and they, therefore, were entitled to and had no other option but to make a liability order.
10. In those circumstances, I have to say this seems to me not a case that has any prospect of success at all and accordingly I refuse permission.
11. There is one postscript to add. Mr Lawson has appeared before me today and in making his order Judge Langan directed that if the application was renewed for an oral hearing, Scarborough Borough Council should be joined as an interested party. Mr Lawson, I think, thinks he may have done that but a letter filed with the court dated 21 May from Scarborough Borough Council tends to suggest that they have not received a copy of the claim form or other relevant documents. At the end of the day I do not think that matters or anything turns on that.
12. Having heard Mr Lawson, and for the reasons which I have given, the application is, as I say, dismissed.