Revamp of an old thread..

My son recently received a notice of intended bailiff visit for a C Tax Liability Order from 2005/2006 he knew nothing about, being for a previous shared tenancy where he'd paid cash to the joint tenant for bills, who hadn't paid the Council. (Yes, I know!!!!)

This was the first he knew of a liability order - notice had been sent to his old address, so he'd no chance to defend it.

The dates on the demand are provably wrong being 3 months longer than he lived there, and therefore the amount demanded is more than is due.

Having written to the Council explaining the circumstances they have pointed out that he is still liable for the debt, which we knew, but have conceded that the dates are wrong.

However they have asked him to fill in a Statement of Income but have not recalculated the amount owed and deducted the 3 months.

They also promised that they would hold off the Bailiff whilst communicating about this, but he turned up when my son was out and put a card through the letterbox. When he phoned they apologised and said it was a "mistake". 8)

So, how to proceed? Need to write back to them and request a recalculation, obviously. But as the Liability Order amount was wrong, can this be overturned and/or the Court Fee deducted from the bill?

My son accepts he must take it on the chin and pay up, but I'm trying for damage limitation.

Also - They won't tell us how much or if the other tenant is paying, so how do we know they won't get BOTH of them to pay the same bill?

Finally, do the Councils ever consider Full & Final Settlements for old CT arrears?

Elsa x

well you certainly can't do F&F [sadly!]

not sure on the wrong amount, but , i'd certainly start paying 'something' to them on a regular basis.

if you are liable for all/none is outside my remit.

dx

Thanks DX,

I've figured he probably owes around £600. He could pay £400 straight off, then something monthly but wonder if that's adviseable as it lets the other guy who REALLY owes the money off the hook. I wish they'd be honest about whether he's paying anything, then my son could match his instalments rather than being landed with the whole bill.

Until the council are provided with information showing the charge is wrong then the liability order amount is correct.

The fact that an adjustment is possible which can reduce the balance is not a valid defence for overturning the liability order - the liability order will stand with the reduced amount.

Hi and thanks ss.

They do now admit it's wrong as they've checked from when his C Tax was paid for his current house, so it's proven, thankfully, they just haven't bothered to let him know the new amount owed.

I suppose the endurance of the LO is hypothetical, really, as he does intend to pay, but he'd rather have done it amicably without the looming threat of bailiffs, and he certainly doesn't want an attachment of earnings as a blot on his record with his employer.

Unfortunately the usual LA attitude is a intransigent " the law is on our side and we do what we like " with a tendency to put a far too literal ( which is a very limited way of thinking ) and over simplified structure on matters , and their " management " express incredulous surprise if anyone has the " temerity " to challenge them in a Magistrates Court , they are also prone to verbal / psychological bullying and tend to be smug and patronising .

There are a few better LA's that are more open to conciliation before they actually get to the Magistrates for a liability order . The kindest thing you can say there is too much politics and " pressure " with a culture of fear . " New Public Sector Management " and a Centralised Target Culture have a lot to answer for too ....common sense , received wisdom and conventional logic unfortunately go out of the window .

There is another problem called Silo Management or in plain English ....failure to communicate thus compounding previous errors and excaberating " mistakes " .

It's best that they are initially challenged in writing , you are also allowed to make a complaint of malinsmistration to the Head of the LA Department ; if you've exhausted those channels ...you are then entitled to go the Local Government Ombudsman ....You are quite entitled to calmly state your case to the Magistrates beforehand ...otherwise the Human Rights Legislation on a Right to a Fair Trial is infringed ....whether the LA and their cardboard cutouts like it or not .

I've had court costs for liability orders dropped by the Head of Dept dropped as the Guild County Administrative Centre LA " case " was built on sand and botched all the way through , I did complain on two occasions , once to a Senior County Councillor and to the Labour MP . The problem appears to be that no one seems to have any authority , everything appears to be by diktat .

A friend of mine is in trouble .....she was prosecuted and fined for non disclosure on CT means testing , £350 costs , £100 fine for each occasion and £15 victim surcharge , prior to the IUC (interview under caution ) she put in a offer for settlement letter and made sure it was mentioned on the prepared written statement . A revised notice was issued ...however the formula used was too simplistic and flawed ...it was at least £200 out , the statements issued only started to right themselves by the last two and were " relatively correct " accurate to the nearest £20 . She paid what she believed was the correct amount and patiently explained and qualified why ....however later under duress and sufferance she paid the extra overcharged £200 .

Whilst the Witness Statements were contradictory , curious , vague , misleading and very disingenuous , begging more questions than answers and this was seized on by the defending solicitor ....those witness statements were covered with red circles and underlinings , the Senior Officers contradicting the Junior Officers

......they stated that the full amount for this financial year had been paid but only on the date she paid the extra overcharged £200 under duress . If you are charged with fraud ....to settle you have to pay on the basis of to the end of this financial year as if you hadn't been caught you would still keep claiming ....The Prosecutor did a graph and statement for the Court Clerk and the Bench , The Magistrates were happy that the amount had been paid back and the Defending Solicitor attested to this to .

Unfortunately " by coincidence " as the end of the financial year is looming , she had a final notice with a order to pay £88 saying she'd been previously warned a month before her IUC , otherwise they'd get a liability order . A reply was drafted and a complaint of malidmistration letter sent to the Head of the Department .

Dunno where you dug this old thread up from, but I certainly agree with:

Unfortunately the usual LA attitude is a intransigent " the law is on our side and we do what we like " with a tendency to put a far too literal ( which is a very limited way of thinking ) and over simplified structure on matters , and their " management " express incredulous surprise if anyone has the " temerity " to challenge them in a Magistrates Court , they are also prone to verbal / psychological bullying and tend to be smug and patronising .

dug up from Google ...doesn't matter how old the threads are ...there's more than a few people digging on the internet as they're in trouble with the " Parish Council "