IN THE FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL APPEAL: EA/2017/0019

GENERAL REGULATORY CHAMBER

(INFORMATION RIGHTS)

BETWEEN:

Appellant
and

THE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER

Respondent

EXHIBIT A-3
Refusal to consider new information
 Page 1 of 2

From: " "< @gmail.com>

To: "Maione, Tony" <Tony.Maione@Nelincs.gov.uk>
Cc: <A.Hobley@coinweb.lgo.org.uk>; "Wilson, Christine 5531
"<Christine.Wilson@humberside.pnn.police.uk>; <Roy.Wernham@ico.gsi.gov.uk>
Sent: 12 January 2017 17:57
Attach: Case stated application missing docs.pdf
Subject: Application to magistrates' court to quash liability order

Dear Mr Maione

Re: Application to magistrates' court to quash liability order

I write in reference to my email which was acknowledged by yourself on 5 January 2017

regarding undelivered documents in an application to the High court. I eventually obtained an unsigned copy
of a key document on 3 January 2017 (over 3 years after it appears to have been produced), presumably
prompted by involvement of my MP and Parliamentary Ombudsman.

The application is a case stated appeal with North East Lincolnshire Council (NELC) named the 'Respondent'.
I have written confirmation from the court that by 13 January 2017 I will receive the signed 'case' which I
intend lodging with the Administrative Office.

With reference to a Council Tax liability hearing on 30 October 2015 and subsequent complaint
(NEL/1172/1516) which escalated to the Local Government Ombudsman, this is yet more evidence that my
appeal to the High Court had never been withdrawn and the Magistrates' court granted a court order
erroneously.

NELC succeeded in persuading the Magistrates' court that the council correctly allocated monies to a sum
which was suspended pending the outcome of my High Court appeal on the basis that I had withdrawn the
case and the sum no longer suspended.

Attached is a document containing a number of relevant correspondence arranged chronologically spanning

the period of the undelivered letters (since obtained) and positioned in context. This, and information already
held by the council should be enough to satisfy the magistrates' court that the liability order should not have
been made. It is therefore a reasonable expectation that the council apply in accordance regulation 36A of the
Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 to have the order quashed. When the council
was previously asked to do this (See ANNEX A) the request was unsuccessful.

NELC should also recognise that those unfortunate enough to find themselves caught up in these matters are
subjected to time consuming and destructive disputes which are completely disproportionate to the issues
they concern. A resolution should therefore be sought at the earliest opportunity and not be allowed to
continue indefinitely. The Council has a responsibility to put right its errors and adequately compensate for
them, taking further into consideration the gross inconvenience caused when protracted over such lengthy
periods of time.

If the Magistrates' court were to quash the liability order granted on 30 October 2015 then the 60 costs
added in September 2015 would have been invalid and require removing from my account. The misallocated
payment of 60 would require reallocating to the 2015/16 account and the disputed costs would remain
suspended until the High Court appeal had concluded. Lastly, the 211 total outstanding on various
accounts would be reduced to 91 (final instalment of 2015/16 account) which is an amount I do not dispute
and would settle without fear of payment being allocated wrongly.

Yours sincerely

22/02/2017
 Page 2 of 2

ANNEX A

Excerpt from 26 January 2016 letter (Formal Complaint NEL/1172/1516)

"Liability order

Lastly there is no reason why the council should assert that the concerns raised about the Liability order falls
outside the scope of the complaints process.

The Local Government Act 2003 introduced into the Local Government Finance Act 1992 the provision
enabling the secretary of state to make regulations giving magistrates' courts powers to quash a liability order
if it was satisfied that one should not have been made. The explanatory notes to the 2003 Act describes the
only avenue available for this before the provision which is as follows:

At present, this can only be achieved on application to a higher court. The cost involved is unwarranted
where there is no dispute about the facts.

I understand the above means a defendant may only appeal a decision to the High Court either by way of a
case stated or judicial review. As implied, both are unreasonable procedures for an ordinary person to have to
embark upon with it likely taking years (if ever) to succeed in having the case brought before the court. There
is no dispute either about the facts in this case.

The application was made because the council had misallocated monies to a sum subject to appeal on the
basis that it believed the case had been withdrawn and the sum no longer suspended. The appeal had never
been withdrawn and the simple fact is that the council could not have believed it had by the incriminating
evidence in the form of Exhibits which supported its witness statement. It has the minimum duty to apply to the
Magistrates to have the liability order quashed as it has been brought to the councils attention that the
application should never have been made......."
 Page 1 of 1

From: "Tony Maione (NELC)" <Tony.Maione@Nelincs.gov.uk>

To: " "< @gmail.com>
Cc: <A.Hobley@coinweb.lgo.org.uk>; "Wilson, Christine 5531
"<Christine.Wilson@humberside.pnn.police.uk>; <Roy.Wernham@ico.gsi.gov.uk>; "Emma
Finch (NELC)" <Emma.Finch@nelincs.gov.uk>; "Eve Richardson-Smith (NELC)"
<Eve.Richardson-Smith@Nelincs.gov.uk>
Sent: 13 January 2017 09:28
Subject: RE: Application to magistrates' court to quash liability order

Dear Mr ,

Please be advised that, with effect from 3 January 2017, I started a secondment from the Council to its
regeneration partner, Engie which has an initial duration of three months.

For the duration of this secondment I authorised the Councils Deputy Monitoring Officer, Mrs Eve
Richardson-Smith, to carry out the relevant functions. I have copied Mrs Richardson-Smith into this email
along with Emma Finch who is a legal support officer at the Council.

A substantive response to your email below, receipt of which is acknowledged, will be provided by or on
behalf of Mrs Richardson-Smith.

Regards

Tony Maione

22/02/2017
 Page 1 of 1

From: "Res - Customer Services" <Res-CustomerServices@nelincs.gov.uk>

To: < @gmail.com>
Cc: <A.Hobley@coinweb.lgo.org.uk>; <Roy.Wernham@ico.gsi.gov.uk>
Sent: 26 January 2017 08:18
Subject: FW: Application to magistrates' court to quash liability order

Dear Mr

Thank you for your latest correspondence regarding this matter. To confirm North East
Lincolnshire Council stands by the action taken and will not be undertaking any further
investigation.

Yours sincerely on behalf of North East Lincolnshire Council

Eve Richardson-Smith LLB

Legal Team Manager & Deputy Monitoring Officer

From: " "< @gmail.com>

To: "Res - Customer Services" <Res-CustomerServices@nelincs.gov.uk>
Cc: <A.Hobley@coinweb.lgo.org.uk>; <Roy.Wernham@ico.gsi.gov.uk>
Sent: 26 January 2017 11:27
Subject: Re: Application to magistrates' court to quash liability order

Dear Eve Richardson Smith

Stage 2 independent review

Your response is entirely unsatisfactory. Firstly I have not asked the Council to undertake an investigation on
account of one being unnecessary, and secondly, there is nothing to support the Council's decision.

The council has been provided overwhelming evidence that it pursued Council Tax recovery through the
Magistrates' court when it shouldn't have.

The simplest way to remedy this is for the Council to apply to the court to have the liability order quashed.

I understand that an application to the court under regulation 36A of the Council Tax Regulations can only be
made by the local authority. However, that doesn't warrant the authority using its discretion irresponsibly
where there is no dispute about the facts. If the person with overall responsibility for this decision continues to
leave the matter unresolved (knowing the serious consequences) then there is absolutely no doubt
whatsoever that the person is unfit for public office.

Yours sincerely

22/02/2017
 Page 1 of 1

From: " "< @gmail.com>

To: "Res - Customer Services" <Res-CustomerServices@nelincs.gov.uk>
Cc: <A.Hobley@coinweb.lgo.org.uk>; <Roy.Wernham@ico.gsi.gov.uk>
Sent: 03 February 2017 12:36
Subject: Re: Application to magistrates' court to quash liability order

Dear Sir/Madam

I should have had acknowledgement of this complaint by 28 January 2017. According to North East
Lincolnshire Council's Corporate Feedback Policy (see para 7.12) a complaint escalated to stage two should
be acknowledged within 2 working days.

https://www.nelincs.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Corporate-Feedback-Policy.pdf

Yours sincerely

From: "Res - Customer Services" <Res-CustomerServices@nelincs.gov.uk>

To: < @gmail.com>
Cc: <A.Hobley@coinweb.lgo.org.uk>; <Roy.Wernham@ico.gsi.gov.uk>
Sent: 07 February 2017 13:12
Subject: RE: Application to magistrates' court to quash liability order

Dear Mr

I refer you to the response provided to you on 26th January 2017 confirming that North East
Lincolnshire Council will not be undertaking any further investigation into this matter. For
clarity, no further acknowledgement or response will be provided to any correspondence of
a similar nature regarding the same issues.

Yours sincerely on behalf of North East Lincolnshire Council

Eve Richardson-Smith LLB

Legal Team Manager & Deputy Monitoring Officer

22/02/2017