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 .

She's angry as she feels this LA are moving the goalposts and there is possible bullying and harassment ...though she is determined to fight this LA and present her case before the Magistrates ...she says she will not be browbeaten by them

Has it said what this £88 is for?? She is entiteled to know.

it sounds like the £88.00 was one of her reglar installments, has she missed any of her monthly installments? does she have records of the payments she made?

the other matters that you mention relate to a reclaim of council tax benefit, it sounds like she has paid back the excess council tax benefit, but may have missed one of her earlier payments

I'm told that the £88 is an instalment overdue from Mid February ....it should have been £96 but she'd been credited £8 .....the point is if you are charged with misrepresentation , you have to make an offer to settle in full to the 31st March ....she was of the understanding that she'd paid up till then and would be left alone until the 2011 -12 Bill comes through and she then sets up a Direct Debit for the ten instalments .

The Full Council Tax for 2010 - 11 should be £1051.86 , for April , May , June , July i.e. 4 months the instalments were £94.14 , i.e. £376.56 , the remaining 6 instalments are at £96.00 i.e. £576.00 , add 4 mths £376.56 + 6 mths £576.00 you get £952.56 , call that approximately £100 short of the full amount ??

What is puzzling is that her single person occupancy discount @ 25 % is £262.97 ....now take that off the full amount of £1051.86 , you get £788.89 ??? !! ......that should be 10 instalments of £78.88 .............. she was getting £13.32 per week in CT Benefit or £53.28 per month towards CT , she wasn't entitled to that ....that's why she was in front of the Bench ....But when she was pulled in for a IUC in Mid June 2010 , she was told by the Senior Investigator that her benefit would be suspended with immediate effect , she actually made a point on her statement saying it hadn't been suspended though she was accused of fraud

I used to be a clerk / cashier for the Railway handling £4000 + per shift and had to do balances .....If I did accounting like this Guild Council , I'd be in the Office ....needing a very good union rep , probably get taken off the job or reduced at best or looking to see I'd a case for a Industrial Tribunal ....that's why I'd a look at the Council notices and starting finding holes . Hope I've explained this properly ....Thanks

hi bustard

the figures used in respect of the misrepresentation and fraud case would only include the council tax benefit that your friend was not entitled to, it does not include the rest of the liability, a simple example would be

if your council tax liabilty was £1000 - and you received 25% discount taking it to £750 - and were awarded £375 benefit - leaving balance of £375

you would be offered 10 instalments of £37.50 - you pay 5 of them, then get convicted over misrepresentation for CTB - your court case would relate to the £375 ctb benefit you had claimed wrongly - however on top of that you would still owe the remasining 5 installments of £37.50

my advice would be to make a list of all payments made by your friend and check those against what the liability should be

Thanks for that ...I'm afraid I'm a bit suspicious and cynical ...I think there's been an attempt to get the figure over the " magic " £2000 for prosecution ....I'm not saying some people are bad or necessarily incompetent .....there seems to have been a lot of politics going on , the kindest thing you can say there's a lot of pressure and the buck stops with the council's senior and middle management .

She always paid her council tax ....though obviously it wasn't enough , personally I feel they've been obtuse , made something more complicated than what it really is and " tripped themselves up " somewhere .......Sorry ......she did ask to settle the whole amount liable not just monies relating to the court case and they got it wrong ....I checked it re payments against liability and found glaring holes in their case . No wonder it was originally at least £200 out . I accept someone has to defend these councils .

councils do get figures wrong, which is why i would normally ignore the mountains of paperwork, and start with the basics

1) what was the total council tax payable for the year?

2) how much has been paid?

i do find it very strange if they have prosecuted on full benefit to end of year, as the overpayment should only run up until the benefit was reassessed

your friend would still owe for the benefit up to the end of year, but this part was not really an overpayment but rather a reclaim of an advance award, it should not normally have been included in the prosecution amount

the only thing more annoying than when they get their figures wrong, is when you get some idiot trying to defend/explain the figures when it is obvious they do not understand the figures any more than "well, the computer says..."

Thanks for those they're very interesting ...............the point about what was the total amount payable and how much was paid is a very salient one .

It seems they've tripped themselves up on the 25% single occupancy discount somewhere .

I did a running total on the Benefit Notification sheet which is in weeks and days and scanned and printed it for them and got her to send it in along with the first letter and cheque stating they'd miscalculated it ....then most importantly put was part paid underneath , the amount for the full financial year 2010 - 11 i.e. £766.14 ....divided it by 12 ....yes I accept it's all wrong ! ......but I feel it was right in principle .

Personally I did think I simplified it within reason .....old school or not ...to get back to basics

.....as for prosecution ...she was told via her Solicitor , if they hadn't caught her ...she'd had been quite happy paying less than she should have ...so therefore they'd prosecute for the full amount ....there was a deal that the Prosecutor would drop the witness statements by the IUC Fraud Officers ....that meant she was in and out in ten minutes ....and the court running was chaotic ....she was in a annex building ....no one from the press was there and no mentions in the local rag ....fortunately !

The point about the computer says yes is a good one . When I was clerking , you had to find say £4500 and it was physically there in notes , cheques , Credit Card Payments , umpteen Warrants ...Home Office ...some were for people let out of prison , SILKS ....i.e. someone's Mum pays for little Johnny or Sharon to get home at the other end or vice versa ......sometimes you could give yourself heart failure thinking you were short ...but you learnt lessons in how you'd tripped yourself up ...and sometimes out of necessity ...there was a mild degree of " creative accounting " ....you had to be sharp witted .......nowadays it's lazy accounting and over reliance on technology , some don't understand what they're doing or have the ability to analysis and break things down ..........................................I'm afraid the old adage applies .....garbage in = garbage out

I have sorted errors out on my own bills ....eventually ....I've been upstairs with my Ward Councillor ....we've seen the Director ....and he agreed to drop court costs ......he probably was one of the few that had discretion and authority ....the problem is departments within departments acting in silos and not talking to each other ....and the problem of " New Public Sector Management " where any valid concerns of say the staff , customers or the Union are discounted as they've " vested interests " .....well of course they would have ! ....and there is a tendency to manage in a very defensive by diktat manner and everyone has to sing from the same hymn sheet ...fine in principle but the real world doesn't play quite so neat ...unfortunately ! ....common sense goes out of the window and things go too far .

It seems to be a mess ....the Council Tax adjustment notices amounts contradict the benefit notification letter ....they only " righted " themselves on the last two