...and as such, making them 17% MORE likely to contract smoking related diseases in later life...according to WHO.

Aside from the WHO report outlining that children of smokers were 17% less likely to contract smoking related disease in later life due to their immune systems being exposed to and becoming 'aware' of the toxins, who are the government to tell anyone what they can and can't do on private property so long as it harms no-one? Ridiculous law from a desperate government. So, after selling Dartford bridge/tunnel to bring cash in they are attempting to crimilise as many as possible in an effort to raise funds? How much does that stink of desperation?

Nope....not the new Bond film... Around 6 years ago I sold my house and moved into a rented flat for a couple of months. I knew it would be temporary so didn't change the address on my licence. Well...after about 5-6 weeks in the rented place, I moved again. I thought that I had sent my licence off to have the address changed (I even remember going to get a form from the post office).. .fast forward a few years and I have a Christmas party for work. I was going to hire a car as the party is several hundred miles away, and so dug out my licence. The date on the front said that my photo was about to expire, so I went to log on to the DVLA website and register...but it wouldn't let me. I phoned up the DVLA and was told that in 2008, I was convicted of a motoring offence (presumably speeding on a camera - she could tell me that the conviction had expired but couldn't tell me what it was), and as I didn't respond, that my licence has been revoked. She's going to send me a form to fill in, but now I'm worried. Does anyone know what will happen next. I am currently unable to drive, which will cause trouble before too long with work etc...

Ok...so...after appearing at court and sending the email that first stated that there were no arrears...guess what? They have considered my case (took around 7 minutes...I sent a chase email and got a reply nearly immediately - which is extremly odd for SDC as they usually take months if they bother to reply at all), and have found that the original investigation that found that the charges (costs) should still stand...still stands, despite their admitting that there was only one account (the email referrenced 'the account' and the investigation found that the email referred to a different account (and thus, more than one). So, I feel I now have very little choice but to initiate action in the county court. Could someone have a read of this before I send it to them to make sure it's a) not too strong, and b) has no errors, please?

Actually, this is rather brilliant news. I may also send a similar letter to SDC asking them to refrain charging this fee until the outcome is heard.

Yes...indeed they do. I turned up at the court last Thursday, and was seen almost immediately (which seems a shame now given what happened afterwards - that is, if the magistrate adjourned the cases on the same day - 16th?). I was 'collected' and taken off. They tried to argue that there was only one account, which was directly the opposite of what their 'investigation' found with regards to the "I can confirm that there are no arrears on the account". So I pointed this out, and they then claimed that there were two accounts, so I then quoted the 1814 case...to which they replied that there was one account again. I told them that they couldn't have it both ways, and they agreed. I went through the "arrears" and it transpired that all but around 4 quid of it was due to their charging 125 quid for each summons. I agreed to pay the arrears and no liability order was issued, but I argued that I shouldn't have to pay the 125 quid(s) as they were due entirely to the council lying and/or taking 3 months to reply to my applying for a single-occupancy discount, and that I wasn't there to pay for their Christmas party - to which one of them replied by saying that they don't get a Christmas party. I told her that I thought she was intelligent enough to understand my point. They then said that if I could prove that they had sent me an email saying that there were no arrears (and hence why I didn't pay any), then they would 'consider' dropping those costs. I have had them 'consider' it many times over the past two years, and each time they arrive at the conclusion that they would rather have the money! So, given the above information, I am now of mind to email them again on Monday stating that they should now not pursue any of those costs until the outcome of the Revd Nicolson’s case is known, regardless of what the outcome of their 'consideration' is. EDIT: Forgot to mention that I did (about a year ago) put in a FOI request to see how many summons' were issued in any one period, and how many of those were paid before a court hearing. The answer was around 1% were cleared, so the other 99% were forced to pay the 125 quid. I will dig this out if it's helpful. I also requested another on Friday asking for a detailed breakdown of how they arrived at the 125 pound figure for issuing a summons. EDIT2: Found it. It [the FOI response] states that 7904 summons' were issued in the 2012 period. 111 of these were paid in full before the court date (including the 125 quid costs). Presumably, the remainder also went on to incur a further 65 quid costs for a Liability Order. That's 7904x125 = 988000 (minus the LO costs, as I didn't request those). It seems completely unfathomable that the council incur that level of cost.

...which is a disgusting abuse of process in my eyes.

Thank you; indeed I will!

I did contact the local councillor - in fact, that was often the only way to get a response from them (to copy him into the correspondence). I have also contacted my MP who simply forwarded the letter to the council and considered that matter closed. I've just had an email from them stating that they are no longer prepared to discuss the issue (they haven't discussed it at all aside from to say "pay up, or else". So, I am armed with printouts of all correspondence so far, bank statements that prove payments, and I'll be on my way to the Magistrates court on the 16th October.

Woo! At last...I have a reply. As they moved the funds earlier in the year, if I don't pay those again I'll be receiving a summons for October 16th. It took 9 weeks to reply to my question and in the reply I have been given three days to sort it out. Farce and pathetic are words that spring to mind. Finally, it seems I might be able to get a conversation going!

Thank you for this information. After reading around, it seems that it's not legal to charge >£100 for issuing a liability order when the actual cost is £3. Is this 'covered' by the 1912 Lord Dunedin ruling/precedent? Also, is it likely that the council will claim that the differing years are not actually differing accounts and therefore the "Peters v Anderson" case isn't relevant? I had a read through the reply I received in response to the complaint I made to the council over a year ago, and they clearly claim that the 'mistake' made by the council (namely, the "There are no arrears on the account" sentence) was because the clerk thought that he was talking about "this years (sic) account". I'm going to try once more via email (I have read receipts that way) to get them to use some common sense and actually engage in a conversation with regards to sorting out the arrears from 3-4 years ago; rather than them simply choosing where the money I pay them is allocated, and deliberately engineering defaults so that they can profit by another 97 quid.

Very Interesting....thank you very much. How would I find out if the £100s that they added due to the liability orders were a result of them taking the money paid for a different year? If that was the case then I would think that they owe me those back due to their issuing of the orders incorrectly (I.e. in breach of the aforementioned case law). Also, probably a daft question, but if I go to court would the civil case law be relevent as the court would be a criminal court and not a civil court.

Cheers. I already have a timeline of events (ignored/replied to correspondence) in a spreadsheet. They have already lied with regards to replies etc... and were caught out by this a couple of years ago. I have send another SAR (just put it in the work out-box), so will see what comes back this time.

I'm going to have to I think. There seems to be absolutely no way to get them entered into a conversation. At one point, I wrote to the head of the council and my MP about this. It's not that they're wrong per se, it's that they won't tell me which payments were missed, how much is owed and what I can do to clear the debt (i.e. I agree to pay extra each month or something, which I'm more than happy to do once I know how much it is for and I've seen evidence that I can match up with bank statements that the payments were actually missed - nearly 4 years ago!). They are hell-bent on simply being as obstructive as possible.

I did that last week, today's email was the one threatening the summons and an amount for this year. They claim that I paid 124 quid, when I actually paid 154 quid, which they decided to use to pay off the previous arrears that I still do not know about, and as such I need to pay the remainder of this year. It's like a farce; they are incapable of entering into discussion about it; prefering instead to issue threats and attempt to bully me into paying an unknown amount...only, when I over pay in an attempt to do so, they send yet another summons. My guess is that they like the extra £100's coming in from the people they do this to.