FI16498

Request

I am conducting research into local authority governance, financial reporting and risk management in relation to the use of civil enforcement agents and related court processes.

Please treat the following as a request for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

Where possible, please provide documents in electronic form (PDF, DOCX, or machine-readable format). Where you answer “No” to a question, please explicitly confirm that no information is held.

If any part of this request is considered wide for the purposes of s.12 FOIA (cost of compliance), please treat the numbered sections in order of priority (1–10 highest) and discharge your duty under s.16 FOIA by helping me refine the scope rather than refusing the request in its entirety.

1. Liability Orders & “Mazur” Compliance

1.1 Does your Council issue Council Tax Liability Orders using an automated or bulk computer process (i.e. hundreds or thousands generated and submitted together), rather than as individually drafted applications?
Please answer Yes/No.

1.2 Does a qualified solicitor or authorised litigator review and certify each individual Liability Order application before it is submitted to the Magistrates’ Court?
Please answer Yes/No.

1.3 If No to 1.2, please provide:

  • the job title/grade of the officer who authorises bulk applications; and
  • any internal policy, procedure, or guidance describing how bulk Liability Order applications are prepared, checked and authorised.

1.4 Please provide any internal legal advice, risk assessment, briefing note or report (if held) that refers to, discusses, or mentions:

  • Mazur & Anor v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] (or any similar case about unauthorised conduct of litigation); and
  • the potential impact on your Liability Order process.

(Where legal privilege is claimed, please at least confirm whether any such document exists, and the date and owner.)

2. Court Costs / Fees & “Leighton” Compliance

2.1 Please provide the current breakdown of the Council Tax “Court Costs” or “Summons Costs” fee that is added to accounts when summonses/liability orders are issued.

If a formal calculation or working paper exists, please provide the most recent version.

2.2 Does that calculation include elements for:

  • pre-summons billing/administration overheads?
  • post-Liability Order enforcement costs (e.g. bailiff/enforcement actions)?

Please answer each Yes/No.

2.3 Please provide any document, legal advice, internal report, or committee paper produced in the last 5 years which:

  • references R (Leighton) v Bristow & Sutor or other case law on unlawful enforcement fees; or
  • reviews whether your court cost / summons fee is lawful and cost-reflective.

3. Use of External Enforcement Providers & Private Equity Ownership

3.1 Since 1 January 2020, has the Council used any of the following as enforcement / recovery agents?

  • CDER Group
  • Court Enforcement Services
  • Marston Holdings
  • Jacobs, Ross & Roberts, Bristow & Sutor, or any other enforcement firm

Please list all enforcement providers currently used and any used since 2020.

3.2 For each current enforcement provider, please provide:

  • the name of the contracting entity;
  • the start date and (if applicable) end date of the current contract;
  • whether the provider is known to be owned or controlled by a private equity firm (e.g. Bain Capital or similar), if held.

3.3 Please provide any financial stability / credit / going-concern assessment or due diligence report carried out on any enforcement provider in the last 24 months, including any:

  • risk assessment,
  • financial assessment,
  • or ESG / reputational risk analysis.

(Where redactions are necessary, please redact narrowly and cite the relevant FOIA exemption.)

4. Revenue Share, Commission & Performance-Linked Payments

4.1 Do any of your enforcement contracts or related arrangements contain:

  • commission or success-fee elements;
  • revenue-sharing arrangements;
  • performance payments linked to amount recovered or number of cases “successfully enforced”?

Please answer Yes/No for each current enforcement provider.

4.2 If Yes, please provide:

  • the relevant contract schedule(s) or clause(s) setting out:
    • the fee structure;
    • any commission or revenue share;
    • any performance-related payments (e.g. uplift at Enforcement Stage 2 / sale of goods);
  • any internal report or briefing to senior management, Section 151 Officer, Cabinet or Audit Committee that:
    • describes the financial model (e.g. “no-win-no-fee” or “success fee”), or
    • explains why this structure was considered acceptable.

5. BWV, Data Protection & DPIA

5.1 Does the Council hold a Body Worn Video (BWV) policy that applies to enforcement agents acting on its behalf (whether employed or contracted)?
If so, please disclose the current version.

If no policy exists, please state:

“No BWV policy held by the Council for enforcement agents.”

5.2 Please provide any Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA), risk assessment or similar document that relates to:

  • the use of BWV by enforcement agents when visiting residential properties or business premises;
  • the sharing of BWV with the police, courts, or other third parties;
  • the retention, deletion and audit of BWV.

If none exist, please explicitly state:

“No DPIA or equivalent risk assessment has been carried out in relation to BWV used in civil enforcement activity.”

5.3 For BWV used by enforcement providers, please confirm:

  • whether the Council or the contractor is designated as Data Controller for BWV footage, according to your records; and
  • whether any Data Processing Agreement or data-sharing agreement exists. If so, please provide it.

5.4 Please provide any internal policy or guidance on:

  • how BWV interruptions/gaps, corruption, or multi-clip sequences are handled;
  • how continuity and chain of custody for BWV is assured where footage is later used in criminal or civil proceedings.

6. Delegation of Coercive Powers & Authorisation

6.1 Please provide any document (policy, delegation scheme, legal advice, or protocol) which:

  • authorises enforcement agents to:
    • attend at residential premises,
    • seize / remove goods,
    • enter into Controlled Goods Agreements,
    • remove or destroy caravans / vehicles / homes, or
    • use BWV as an evidential record; and
  • sets out the legal basis relied upon for those powers.

6.2 Please provide any scheme of delegation, contract schedule, or similar document which identifies:

  • who within the Council authorises the use of external enforcement agents;
  • any requirement to verify:
    • bonding,
    • insurance,
    • valid certification,
    • or corporate good standing (e.g. not dissolved).

7. Procurement, Competition & Social Value

7.1 Please provide the procurement documentation relating to your current main enforcement contract(s) (post-2014), including:

  • the Invitation to Tender (ITT) or Request for Quotation;
  • the evaluation / scoring matrix (including weightings);
  • the contract award report or equivalent decision document.

7.2 Please provide any procurement-stage risk assessment or advice that:

  • considered the human rights, equality, or safeguarding implications of outsourcing enforcement;
  • considered alternative models such as in-house or non-bounty-based recovery (e.g. Scottish-style systems).

7.3 Please provide any Equality Impact Assessment (EIA), Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) assessment, or similar document specifically related to:

  • civil enforcement,
  • the selection of contractors, or
  • the destruction/removal of caravans/mobile homes.

If none exist, please state that no EIA/PSED assessment specific to enforcement has been carried out.

8. KPIs, Monitoring & Harm Metrics

8.1 Please provide the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) used to monitor enforcement contractors, including any KPIs relating to:

  • complaints volumes and outcomes;
  • vulnerability / safeguarding;
  • BWV usage and integrity;
  • forced entry, vehicle removal or removal/destruction of caravans;
  • police callouts or incidents.

If you hold no KPIs specific to enforcement conduct, please state this explicitly.

8.2 Please provide any reports to senior management, Cabinet, Scrutiny or Audit Committee in the last three financial years that summarise:

  • enforcement activity;
  • contractor performance;
  • complaints or incidents;
  • safeguarding concerns;
  • or enforcement-related “lessons learned”.

8.3 If held, please provide any statistics (or the most recent report) relating to:

  • homelessness, evictions, caravan/habitation removal,
  • serious incidents, injuries or police involvement
    arising from civil enforcement.

If no such data is tracked, please confirm that no harm metrics are held.

9. Police Interaction & Criminalisation of Enforcement Incidents

9.1 Please provide any policy, protocol, Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) or guidance that governs:

  • when enforcement agents contact the police during enforcement action;
  • how the Council expects:
    • “breach of the peace” incidents,
    • alleged assaults on enforcement agents,
    • or obstruction events
      to be handled.

9.2 Please provide any documents (if held) that relate to joint training or joint operations between:

  • the Council;
  • its enforcement provider(s); and
  • the territorial police force
    in relation to civil enforcement.

10. Complaints & EAC2 / Oversight

10.1 Please provide the Council’s complaints process specifically relating to:

  • actions by enforcement agents; and
  • how a complaint is escalated where the agent is employed by an external contractor.

10.2 Please provide the number of complaints received about enforcement actions in each of the last three full financial years, and if recorded:

  • how many were upheld,
  • how many were partially upheld, and
  • how many resulted in:
    • fees being refunded, or
    • enforcement being cancelled / withdrawn.

10.3 Please provide any internal guidance or policy that deals with:

  • whether complaints about enforcement misconduct are investigated by:
    • Council officers, or
    • the enforcement company itself.

11. Financial Reporting, Contingent Liabilities & Risk Registers (IAS 37 / IFRS / CIPFA)

11.1 Please provide any risk register entries, internal reports or Section 151 briefings that refer to:

  • potential unlawful fees in enforcement;
  • exposure arising from Leighton v Bristow & Sutor or similar cases;
  • exposure arising from Mazur-type challenges to Liability Orders;
  • human rights claims or Ombudsman risk linked to enforcement.

11.2 Please confirm whether, in the last three financial years, the Council has recognised any provisions or contingent liabilities in its accounts related to:

  • possible refunds of enforcement fees;
  • potential legal claims against enforcement providers or the Council arising from enforcement actions.

If Yes, please provide:

  • the relevant note from the accounts; and
  • any internal paper explaining the nature and basis of those liabilities.

11.3 Please provide any document, briefing, or correspondence (if held) that explicitly refers to:

  • IAS 37, IFRS 9, the CIPFA Code of Practice, or the Prudential Code, in the context of enforcement-related financial risk;
  • the possible misstatement of income where unlawful enforcement fees might need to be refunded.

12. External Audit & ISA 240 / 250 / 540

12.1 Please provide any correspondence in the last three financial years between the Council (including Section 151 Officer or finance team) and its external auditor that:

  • discusses enforcement fees,
  • raises questions about the legality or recoverability of enforcement-related income,
  • or considers the impact of:
    • Leighton, Mazur, or similar cases;
    • enforcement misconduct;
    • or BWV / evidence integrity issues.

12.2 Please provide any audit findings reports, management letters, or similar documents from your external auditor which:

  • refer to ISA 240 (fraud), ISA 250 (laws and regulations), or ISA 540 (accounting estimates & related disclosures)
    in the specific context of:
  • enforcement-related income;
  • liability orders;
  • or contingent liabilities arising from enforcement.

(Where redactions are necessary, please apply them narrowly and identify the exemption relied upon.)

13. Conflicts of Interest, Gifts & Hospitality

13.1 Please provide the register of interests / gifts / hospitality (or relevant extracts) for officers and members responsible for:

  • enforcement contracts;
  • council tax recovery;
  • Section 151 / finance leadership;
    for the last three financial years.

13.2 Please identify any declared interest, directorship, employment, consultancy, or hospitality involving:

  • CDER Group,
  • Court Enforcement Services,
  • Marston Holdings,
  • or any other enforcement provider used by the Council.

If easier, you may provide a search result / extract limited to those entities.

14. Monitoring Officer & Section 151 Interventions

14.1 Please provide any report, memo, or advice issued by the Monitoring Officer within the last five years that:

  • touches on the lawfulness of:
    • enforcement activity;
    • liability order processes;
    • use of external enforcement providers;
    • or BWV/data issues in enforcement.

14.2 Please provide any report, note, or briefing by the Section 151 Officer (or equivalent) that:

  • identifies civil enforcement as a financial risk,
  • or discusses the potential need to restate income or recognise liabilities if enforcement fees were found to be unlawful.

14.3 Please confirm whether any Section 114 notice has been considered or issued where enforcement revenue and/or litigation risk was a contributing factor (details if Yes; “No” if not).

Response

1. As follows:

1.1 Yes

1.2 No

1.3 Council Tax Team Leader.  There are no procedures or training notes, knowledge transfer (where required) is verbal.

1.4 The Council does not hold this information.

2. As follows:

2.1 Current calculation breakdown is attached. Note: the costs allocated to a debtors' account may vary ie be LESS than the calculated cost, because the council absorbs the difference. The current (2025/26) level of costs is as follows:

Council Tax

NDR

Summons

LO

Summons

LO

£97

£80

£97

£80

Please note, Dover District Council outsources Council Tax administration to PartnershipOne. The delegation of such functions is authorised by The Local Authorities (Contracting Out of Tax Billing, Collection and Enforcement Functions) Order 1996.

2.2 As follows:

  • pre-summons billing/administration overheads?

Yes.

  • post-Liability Order enforcement costs (e.g. bailiff/enforcement actions)?

No.

2.3 The Council does not hold this information.

3. As follows:

3.1 We have considered this question as only being in relation to Council Tax recovery. In relation to the collection of Council Tax Dover District Council have used: Dukes and Marston Holdings Ltd.

3.2 PartnershipOne, and before that Civica UK. Dover District Council outsource the administration of Council Tax to PartnershipOne and obtain access to Enforcement Providers through that arrangement as opposed to directly contracting with them. Therefore, Dover District Council do not hold these contracts.

We hold no information about whether the providers are owned or controlled by private equity firms.

3.3 The Council does not hold this information.

4. As follows:

4.1 We have considered this question as only being in relation to Council Tax recovery, as to have a wider scope would increase the burden on public resources and potentially cause FOIA2000 s12 to be engaged. No recorded information is held. See answer to Q3.2.

4.2 Not applicable

5. As follows:

5.1 No BWV policy held by the Council for enforcement agents.

5.2 No DPIA or equivalent risk assessment has been carried out in relation to BWV used by enforcement agents.

5.3 The Council does not consider itself a Data Controller of BWV footage captured by enforcement providers.

5.4 The Council does not hold this information.

6.  We do not recognise the use of the word "coercive" in relation to our actions, however in as much as Dover District Council do lawfully use enforcement agents we can advise the following.

Dover District Council’s scheme of delegation is available online and therefore exempt from disclosure under the FOIA2000 by virtue of s21 as it is reasonable accessible to you. s21 is an absolute exemption and not subject to a public interest test.

To assist you in accessing this information we can advise you can view the Constitution here: https://www.dover.gov.uk/Corporate-Information/PDF/Constitution-2025-Issue-27-FINAL.pdf

7. No recorded information is held, see answer to Q3.2.

8. As follows:

8.1 The Council does not hold this information, see answer to Q3.2.

8.2 The Council does not hold this information.

8.3 The Council does not hold this information.

9. The Council does not hold this information.

10. As follows:

10.1 Dover District Council’s complaints policy would accommodate such matters and is available online and therefore exempt from disclosure under the FOIA2000 by virtue of s21 as it is reasonable accessible to you. s21 is an absolute exemption and not subject to a public interest test.

To assist you in accessing this information we can advise you can view information about our complaints policy here: www.dover.gov.uk/Customer-Services/Complaints/Complaints.aspx

10.2 This element of the request is refused under FOIA2000 Section 12 and Section 14 as it represents an unreasonable burden on the public authority. Complaints about Enforcement Action are not identifiable other than by going through each and every item of correspondence and examining the content of that correspondence. Without first establishing the number of items of correspondence, and the using a sample large enough to produce are presentative average time it is difficult to provide an estimate of how far over the costs limit, provided, by s12, such an activity would be. However, officer knowledge allows us to say with some certainty that it would significantly exceed the costs limit, therefore there is no benefit in conducting such an exercise to create such an estimate. Therefore, this is refused under s14. In doing so we have determined that public interest is better served by the protection of the resources to conduct such an exercise as opposed to conducting the exercise and then likely refusing under s12 anyway.

10.3 The Council does not hold this information, see answer to Q10.1.

11. As follows:

11.1 The Council does not hold this information.

11.2 No.

11.3 The Council does not hold this information.

12. The Council does not hold this information.

13. As follows:

13.1 The Council does not hold this information.

The declaration of interests for members are published online and therefore exempt from disclosure under the FOIA2000 by virtue of s21 as it is reasonable accessible to you. Section 21 is an absolute exemption and not subject to a public interest test.

To assist you in accessing this information, the information can be found at: Councillors and Elections. Otherwise, no recorded information is held.

13.2 The Council does not hold this information.

14. As follows:

14.1 The Council does not hold this information.

14.2 The Council does not hold this information.

14.3 No.

Attachments

Attachment