Supplementary written evidence from Taxpayers Against Poverty 

Using the experience of the magistrates’ courts to amend the benefit sanction so it is not responsible for the hunger of the unemployed

 

  1. Background

In 1997 I founded the Zacchaeus 2000 Trust http://z2k.org/ . One of the first things we did was to sign a contract with Wycombe Magistrates Court to help fine defaulters to fill in their means statements for the magistrates. I was in the court most Wednesday mornings for nearly ten years. We now support about 2000 cases a year of London benefit claimants in debt to the State. In 2012 I founded Taxpayers Against Poverty.  I live in Tottenham and have continued to support benefit claimants in debt to the State. Please see these two posts on our website.

http://taxpayersagainstpoverty.org.uk/news/ministers-lost-their-moral-compass-bearings and http://taxpayersagainstpoverty.org.uk/news/benefit-sanctions

 

Magistrates’ Courts

  1. The magistrates often fine people in their absence. They then issue a collection order requiring a fines officer to collect the fine. The offender may then either pay off the whole fine or contact the fines officer to arrange time to pay. For example an unemployed single adult receiving £73.10 single adult JSA/ESA/IS might have been fined £220. It can be deducted from benefit.  The deduction rate is £5 per week, but for Universal Credit only, the deduction can be up to £25 each week.  That would seem fair up to April 2013. But since April 2013 that £73.10 per week could be paying bedroom tax and council tax. Only the magistrate can remit the whole or part of the fine. A fine with time to pay seems a good model for the jobcentres.

 

A point of principle.

  1. It seems very close to unconstitutional for the judiciary and the executive to be fused into one in the jobcentres to impose disproportionate fines on the unemployed. So disproportionate and unfair are they that they stop the income needed for food, fuel and other necessities. This must stop.

 

A possible solution

  1. A punishment should always be imposed by some independent person who can hear the case for both sides. In the case of TV license evasion the BBC prosecutes and the evader has the opportunity to offer a defence in front of a magistrate. I suggest a magistrate and a magistrates’ clerk visit the jobcentres once a month to hear the prosecution case for a sanction from the jobcentre and the defence from the unemployed, including such vulnerability as may be relevant; as is required by the Wednesbury Principles.[1]

Rev Paul Nicolson

14/12/2016

Fines procedures

Source National Debt Line. https://www.nationaldebtline.org/EW/factsheets/Pages/magistratescourtfines/magistratescourtdebt.aspx

The court must send you a copy of the collection order which should tell you the following information:

applying to the fines officer

You can only apply to the fines officer to change your payment arrangements if you can prove you have had a change in your circumstances, or you can give the court extra information about your financial position.

If you cannot afford to pay, you can apply to the fines officer for:

If the fines officer refuses your request, you can appeal to the magistrates’ court within ten days. This should lead to a hearing with the magistrates.

 

What if I can't afford the repayments?

You may find that you cannot afford to pay the amounts ordered for a reason, such as a drop in income, multiple debts, a relationship breakdown, a new baby or due to illness.

 

Paul Nicholson,
December 2016

 

 


[1] Please see page 6 of our initial written submission.