Gray, R (on the application of) v Bristol City Council

MR JUSTICE COLLINS: This is a renewed application seeking judicial review of a suspension imposed by Bristol City Council upon the claimant in respect of his entitlement to benefit so that he is not liable to pay council tax.

The claimant has been for longer than he cares to consider in receipt of job seekers' allowance, but he has also from time to time had brushes with the police. One such brush led to a claim for compensation for unlawful arrest which was successful. On 7 April 2008 he received compensation in the sum of £7,500. That had an obvious immediate effect upon his entitlement to job seekers' allowance. As a result of receipt of that money, he no longer received that allowance. But on 20 May the Department agreed to reinstate the job seekers' allowance. If an individual has some capital but is not working the existence of the capital - the precise amount perhaps is immaterial, suffice it to say it is more than £7,500 - does not preclude the payment of the £60.50 per week job seekers' allowance. That amount of £60.50 is what is assumed to be the minimum upon which an individual should be able to live.

On 2 June the claimant filed a form in relation to his council tax benefit so that the council should recognise that the benefit should be available once he was again receiving the job seekers' allowance. The form itself is very detailed. There is no suggestion that Mr Gray has at any time ever sought to conceal anything from the council or, indeed, from the Department in relation to his earnings, if any, or any other sums of money which he may receive. It is plain from the correspondence received that the council has received copies of Mr Gray's bank statement because there is explicit reference to certain sums which were paid in.

By letter of 18 June 2008 Mr Stone, the benefits officer of the council, wrote to the claimant stating that he understood there was a break in his income support job seekers' allowance; in fact initially a week in November 2007 (I do not think that is of any real materiality to the claim before me) and the six weeks or so in April/May 2008. The letter stated:

I am bound to say that it seems to me, as Mr Gray has submitted, that the majority of those questions were unnecessary because the information was already in the council's possession. However they did ask for confirmation of the source of the £7,500 credit which was the compensation from the police. They wanted evidence of his studies because there had been a £250 credit as a student loan. The question was -

Mr Gray's response to that was that the council's action was unlawful because he clearly had understood that the suspension was to take effect immediately and was continuing to take effect while he was on job seekers' allowance.

That letter produced a further letter from Mr Stone which was not really a response. It stated that not knowing the circumstances during the break period in 2008 - there is no reference to the earlier period in November 2007 -

Mr Coppel submits that that ought to have made it clear to Mr Gray that the suspension was only for that short period. Mr Gray accepts - and from the outset in his submissions to me he has accepted - that he was bound to pay the benefit that covered that period which I think amounts to something in the order of £115.

Mr Gray, as a result of that letter, instituted these proceedings. In fact he did not do that until 30 July, but there was no further correspondence. In the claim he sought to challenge the suspension of the council tax full rebate claim. In what he described as a skeleton argument concerning grounds for bringing the claim he makes clear that he believed that the suspension was after 19 May. If one looks at the order that he sought - because he included in his form an application for an immediate order - it was that the defendant should lift the suspension of the statutory entitlement to full council tax rebate from 19 May 2008 to the present.

Unfortunately the matter was put, understandably, to a judge before any acknowledgement of service, and the view taken by Mr Justice Goldring was that the application was totally without merit. It has been renewed. The renewal has triggered a letter from the council threatening a claim for costs but not making it clear that the suspension was not being sought - indeed was not being effected - after 19 May. There is language in the letter from which that might be deduced, but since it was plain that Mr Gray was under the misapprehension it would have been rather more sensible to have made it as clear as it could be that the suspension was not being maintained other than for the period in question.

Yesterday a statement was made by Mr Stone in which that is indeed made clear; as Mr Gray says, made clear for the first time. It has been confirmed in open court. So the claim as lodged is no longer needed. Indeed it never was needed if only there had been a proper and sensible communication between Mr Gray and the council.

There is a further point with which Mr Gray is concerned; that is the action by bailiffs. The present action by the bailiffs relates to a pre-existing council tax debt amounting to some £282 odd, a liability order in respect of which was imposed by the Magistrates' Court in March 2008. The point that has been raised by Mr Gray is that since the £60.50 is the amount recognised by the Government as the minimum on which an individual can exist, it is contrary to that for the bailiffs to be able to distrain. He says that it is something that the council should not and indeed could not lawfully do. Whenever in the past he has got into arrears of payment of council tax, he tells me, an arrangement has been reached whereby a small sum each week is taken out of his job seekers' allowance and paid to the council. This has amounted to some £4 or so a week. He has submitted to me that that is the only proper basis on which the council could enforce payment of arrears. He submits that that shows that, since they would have appreciated they could not enforce through bailiffs on someone on job seekers' allowance, the suspension was indeed imposed after 18 June.

I appreciate I have not gone into the detail because it has not been directly before me. But it seems to me it is highly unlikely to be the position that the council is precluded from taking action through bailiffs to distrain on goods because there may be a sum of money available, as there was but is not now, in Mr Gray's case as a result of the £7,500. Unfair and harsh as it may seem, that is a separate matter. If there are means - although they may not be taken into account in fixing job seekers' allowance - nonetheless they may be available to pay off past debts. I am not making any final conclusion on that. It is not open to me to do so.

The result is that this claim now is shown to be unnecessary, thus unarguable, and so permission is refused. Effectively though Mr Gray has confirmation of the fact that the suspension only applied up until 19 May. What may be the present position is not a matter for me at this stage.

THE APPLICANT: I understand this is appealable.

MR JUSTICE COLLINS: What do you want to appeal? There is nothing to appeal.

THE APPLICANT: Shall I adumbrate some grounds?

MR JUSTICE COLLINS: Mr Gray, let us have some common sense. You claimed the basis on which the suspension was in existence - - it is not. You have effectively got what you claimed. That has been clarified. You are frankly, if I may say so, a fool if you want to proceed in litigation on this now.

THE APPLICANT: I beg to differ. I may be a fool on other matters but certainly not on this. The reasons, if you are interested, as to why I am seeking grounds to appeal is because it is my intention that I would have evidence that it is not - - that it won't be forthcoming because I haven't (?) understood the council's arguments today. You said yourself that I had written a pre-action protocol letter. In the first stage of the proceedings they did have all the statements as to what was predicated in my grounds, and if the case was that they had not - - if they had indeed lifted my - - if the suspension only applied to the relevant six-week period, then they did not make that clear in response to those grounds. And what I would be able to provide to the appeal court is detailed evidence that in fact when you are on job seekers' allowance, income based on minimum income or simply basic benefits, they are not allowed to impose bailiff action because they accept - - - - -

MR JUSTICE COLLINS: Mr Gray, you are not in these proceedings making a claim as to whether they are entitled or not to take bailiff action. That is not part of your claim. Therefore there is nothing to appeal against in relation to this claim. If you want to pursue with them the assertion that they are not entitled to take bailiff action and should not be taking bailiff action, then you must contact them, you must inform them and put before them what is the basis for that. I am not in the least encouraging you. I think going into litigation is a mistake. That would be a separate matter. It is not this claim and therefore there is nothing to appeal.

THE APPLICANT: With the greatest of respect, in all humbleness, the reason why they are connected is because the evidence that shows that my claim - - you see, the whole argument from the defence and what you base the claim as being frivolous and pointless is unnecessary, on which you base you assertion that the claim was unnecessary, was that the suspension had been re-imposed and only applied to a very brief period. My counter-argument to that and the evidence for the counter-argument to that is that if the claim had not been suspended up from May or certainly June to the present date - if it had not been imposed - I would not be visited by the bailiffs. The reason why - - - - -

MR JUSTICE COLLINS: Mr Gray, I have given you a lot of leeway. Your claim in these proceedings was simply against the suspension. That claim - you have shown and indeed they have confirmed - was unnecessary because you have not been suspended: end of this claim. If you have further matters that you say are consequential and you say that the bailiff action should be reconsidered you must press the council. That is nothing to do with this claim. If you did try to take the matter further you would be bound to fail because, as I said, there is nothing in this claim that deals with it and you may find that the court before which you appeared would not be as kind as I have been.

THE APPLICANT: My only real passion about life generally and the law certainly - I have no say in terms of determining - is simply the truth and that the courts should not in any way be used to manipulate the truth or go against the truth. The truth of the matter is the suspension is clearly stated in black and white as having been imposed on 25 June and it must have applied up until 3 May otherwise they would not have had the authority to impose bailiff action.

MR JUSTICE COLLINS: That is not the situation. If there are consequences that flow from that position it is a matter you will have to take up with them.

THE APPLICANT: With great respect, you have said you are not entirely familiar with the law about bailiff action and how it may be imposed at any given time.

MR JUSTICE COLLINS: That is why I have said it is a matter you must take up with the council. You must take it up with the council on the basis that there was no suspension after 19 May subject to whatever may happen since the end of July.

THE APPLICANT: To save me going up to the appeals office forthwith and filing unnecessarily and wasting court time and so forth, if I were to clarify - - can I suggest to you, put a hypothesis, if I were to present you with statutory evidence of procedure from the council under law which states that no bailiff action can be brought against a particular individual - - - - -

MR JUSTICE COLLINS: It would not help. I can only deal with the claim that is before me.

THE APPLICANT: It is a very brief point. It will be very succinct. If I was to say that if I could provide you with the authority that proves that there would be - - I would have no - - you have a letter there but can I actually ask for it back, it is the letter from the bailiffs I handed up to you that is a bit soiled. No, that is the statute. That is the one. (Handed) The point that I am making - and you have been very tolerant today and I am very grateful - is this example, the visit from the bailiff on 29 of last month, would not have happened if my suspension had not been imposed not for the period in question which is many months ago but to the present day. The argument - let me take the point very succinctly so I do not have to interrupt you again - the point with this gentleman here is that he is contending and based his argument on that I laboured under the misapprehension that no suspension had been imposed since the time that I have re-claimed. The proof that goes against that is the fact that they were still visiting my premises on a regular basis which they could not do if the claim had not been suspended. That is my argument.

MR JUSTICE COLLINS: Mr Gray, forgive me; let me see if you understand this. It does not prove anything of the sort. It may be that if you show that if you were during that time entitled to benefit because of the job seekers' allowance that they would not in those circumstances - possibly should not.

THE APPLICANT: They cannot under the laws. That is my argument.

MR JUSTICE COLLINS: If that is your contention you could go to them and say since you now accept that you were not suspended, how can you justify the bailiffs and they will explain how they can. If they are wrong, as a matter of law, you have your civil remedies, but they are not remedies that are available to you in these proceedings.

THE APPLICANT: I take you point. I take your point, my Lord.

MR JUSTICE COLLINS: Therefore it is a pointless exercise to try to appeal.

THE APPLICANT: I understand. It is just in my view - and it may be just in my view at the moment - but I am fairly convinced, my Lord, I am fairly convinced, that Mr Stone's statement that "your claim has been suspended", clearly in black and white, is clearly specifically referring to a period that has lasted throughout the summer and is clearly the reason that the bailiffs have acted in the way they do. That is obviously where we differ.

MR JUSTICE COLLINS: No. We do not differ because it has been made clear now that the starting point now is that the benefit claim was not suspended after 19 May.

THE APPLICANT: Even though there is a letter that says it has been. I take you point.

MR JUSTICE COLLINS: The letter may say this, that and the other. The fact is that this court hearing has established - if it needed to establish - that you were not suspended from benefit after 19 May.

THE APPLICANT: I know, my Lord, but in the meantime my contention is that it has only come about as a result of this hearing and you have stated in your judgment that this hearing was unnecessary.

MR JUSTICE COLLINS: That may be, but that does not matter. The reality is that for whatever reason there is no suspension. What other consequences there are of that is an entirely different matter and it is not a matter that these proceedings can deal with.

THE APPLICANT: I am very grateful for the hearing today. Can I ask possibly anyway for a copy - - I am on - - - - -

MR JUSTICE COLLINS: You can have a copy of the judgment at public expense.

THE APPLICANT: I am very grateful. The final point is I assume permission is refused.

MR JUSTICE COLLINS: That is what I have said.

THE APPLICANT: Thank you very much for the hearing. (Pause)

MR JUSTICE COLLINS: I just have to fill in a form saying why I have refused leave to appeal but I have not. I do not think it will assist anyone.

THE APPLICANT: My Lord, I was simply - - - - -

MR JUSTICE COLLINS: You were seeking clarification.

THE APPLICANT: I was.

MR JUSTICE COLLINS: I do not understand that you applied for it, but anyway I could not grant it for the reasons I have given.