The Analysis Comment
Taking affront?
Civil court fee alignment continues a stealth tax on consumers and an affront to justice
Rob Thompson Chair, Civil Court Users Association
robertt@ccua.org.uk
The Civil Court Users Association (CCUA), whose members issue around 85% of Civil Money Claims in the Courts in England and Wales, is appalled at the latest government consultation to align online civil money claims fees with “paper application” fees, on the basis that it is a further extension of an already harmful fees structure. The proposal states that the fee alignment
is to address the gap following the annual net fee income of £724m against the £2bn running costs of HM Courts and Tribunal Service (HMCTS). That is misleading. Those figures relate to the whole of the service, including family and criminal courts, whereas this proposal is only in respect of an increase in Civil Claim Fees. HMCTS has previously confirmed to the CCUA (following our request) that in 2018/19, Civil Claim Fees produced an income of £561m whereas only £475m was spent providing the service. Court users are happy to pay a fair price
for the service they use. However, it is not right that they currently
pay more than the service costs, only to then receive a sub-standard service, whilst the additional sums are spent elsewhere. The proposal states that: “The Lord
include parties who do not physically have the money to commence or defend a court claim. It includes where the fee structure renders legal action so expensive that it deters potential parties from exercising their legal rights. The highest fee for simply issuing a Claim
Form stands at £10,000, calculated upon the size of the claim. However, the size of the claim has nothing to do with how much work will be required by the courts. Fees of this size for such a simple procedural step are simply unjustifiable on any basis. The CCUA warned that such fees would
encourages legal action against somebody who owes a small amount of money. At the same time somebody who owes a far larger amount might escape legal action altogether. That is not right or fair
fee
Chancellor has a personal, statutory and constitutional duty to protect access to justice.” There needs to be a wider understanding of what access to justice means. It does not just
Justice itself is a victim. This
structure
impact access to justice, during successive consultations of fee increases. The figures now clearly show that Claimants are issuing cheaper, lower value claims, but that they are frequently denied justice on higher value claims as they are too expensive. The losses due to this restriction on access
to justice is a burden on UK business. That cost will ultimately have to be passed on. This essentially represents a stealth tax on UK consumers. Court fees are often added by the court
to Judgments to ultimately be paid by the Defendant. These court fees are thereby as unfair on the Defendant as they are to
the Claimant. Justice itself is a victim. This fee structure effectively encourages
legal action to be taken against somebody who owes a small amount of money, following which they can receive a County Court Judgment against their name for six years. At the same time somebody who owes a far larger amount might escape legal action altogether, as it is too expensive. That is not right or fair. In summary, not only is the CCUA entirely against the proposals to
align fees, we call for a full fee review. There should be a reduction in the higher existing fee levels. Justice should be affordable. It should not place such a burden upon both Claimant and Defendant. The current fee structure is harmful to all court users, damages UK
business, burdens consumers, denies access to justice and potentially damages the reputation of the Court system itself. The current proposals only make that worse. CCR
January 2021
www.CCRMagazine.com 11
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52