Hi

in 2010 I had to go on part time to my work and was earning around 150 a week.

after 3months in part time position when things started to get better i went back full time and I agreed with council to pay 50 a month until I get on my feet.

But as usual bad luck I lost my job by getting sacked ,so I appealed against the sacking decision

I got the job back which made me miss payments for council tax so the court Summons cost was added last year.

last month I received the new bill plus old outstanding balance of £505 .

I called the council last week and told them that I will start making new council tax and carry on paying £50, as I agreed previously

as the council lady refused to put an payment arrangement in place, don't want to go in some kind of deal until the court summon was issued and £70 extra charges are added ,

I went mad and argued not to add court summon charges .

she said no way it can be stopped as it is government law to issue court summons and add extra charges

I got little angry she hangup on me .

I called again spoke with another lady from council and she also went telling me the same story as the first one

so I asked her is there any one i can write to so these charges can be dropped and the reply was you can write to us but the charges will stay on.

I was really annoyed and asked that i want to attend the court summon in front of magistrate as i am going to fight it back

as there was no need to issue court summon as i am happy to set payment plan for the outstanding balance .

anyone please tell me what are my chances of winning this argument of adding these unfair court summon charges

even though I am paying them towards outstanding arrears .

The council lady was so confident that there is no way I can avoid the court summon charges .

thanks

can you PLEASE go through the post and EDIT in blank line breaks and sentences

i've tried reading it twice and makes no sence to me.

dx

siteteam

can you PLEASE go through the post and EDIT in blank line breaks and sentences

 

i've tried reading it twice and makes no sence to me.

 

dx

siteteam

done it thanks

no i've just done it.

still cant full grasp it.

are you saying you've had the new CTAX bill and the old bill and you are going to only pay £50 for both

or

are you paying the new bill as it should be + are paying £50 toward the old CTAX bill?

eitherway if you are late with the new or behind with the old, they are saadly within their rights to get a LO issued and charge you for it.

dx

Yes unfortunately,since you had arrears and was late with the new one,it is usual for them to go for a liability order.

This is their insurance of being able to enforce recovery.

Although it has been said that the actual cost per LO to be rubber stamped is only a couple of pounds cost to the Council,costs added onto the account can vary from £50 to £100 depending on the Council.

The Magistrates are not able to intervene on costs,nor will they get involved in any payment arrangements,only if the actual amount of the arrears is wrong,or you dont owe anything will they be prepared to listen.

Its up to you now to agree a repayment plan that they will accept,and if you break it,you will find them passing it to Bailiffs-so dont ignore it.

With the Gov Council spending cuts affecting most Town Halls now,Councils have begun to take enforcement more readily.

I am paying new ctax £117 new plus £50 . I am uptodate with new ctax. I asked them not to issue Lo for old ctax as it will add more £70 on the arrears as I am already struggling to pay and they are not willing to stop the Lo which .is there a way that I can fight this in court as I am paying it but all this Lo is no need for it as I have not miss the payments in this new year .but they saying last year is finished now this old arrears is class as new debt and they have to start the process of Lo all over again and make me bare the cost of it .can get any result in front magistrate if raise this issue .thanks

Tariq,

If there are amounts outstanding from the previous year and you cannot clear them before the next years amounts are billed,then these days they will go for a liability order.

If you did speak to them after getting notice that the LO was going to be heard in Court,and made an undertaking to pay the outstanding amount,then yes they could have withdrawn the LO-providing you DID clear the arrears BEFORE the hearing.

Can you say if that was the case-and if so

1.How did you notify them.?

2.How long before the LO hearing did you actually pay the arrears ?

If you can show that they went ahead with the application AFTER you had cleared the arrears from the old account,and that this had been done in good time before the hearing,and they were notified to that effect-then you could have a case to argue.

For proof of this I think you would be best to do a full subject access to get proof of it with screenshots/call logs etc.

Do you understand all that ?

I should add that this is something I did myself a couple of years ago,and had £100 costs refunded as a credit to my CT account-so it can be done.

Moved to the Council Tax forum.

Tariq 2009,

I fully sympathise with your objection to the government profiting from residents over Council Tax Summonses and Liability orders.

I realise this issue maybe behind you now but I found something relevant to this thread that I'll post in case you or anyone else is interested in the legality (or illegality) of the Council Tax summons and Court procedures.

Regina v. Brentford Justices. Ex parte Catlin

The most relevant to this thread I think are the closing comments of Lord Widgery C.J

"....It must however be remembered that before a summons or warrant is issued the information must be laid before a magistrate and he must go through the judicial exercise of deciding whether a summons or warrant ought to be issued or not. If a magistrate authorises the issue of a summons without having applied his mind to the information then he is guilty of dereliction of duty and if in any particular justices' clerk's office a practice goes on of summonses being issued without information being laid before the magistrate at all, then a very serious instance of maladministration arises which should have the attention of the authorities without delay...."

Another quote related to this case:

"A decision by magistrates whether to issue a summons pursuant to information laid involves the exercise of a judicial function, and is not merely administrative."

There is a F.O.I. request incidentally, getting into this territory on the whatdotheyknow site.

The fact that there are typically several hundred cases at a single court hearing may have some relevance to Lord Widgery's comments; what is the possibility that the magistrate would go through the judicial exercise of deciding whether a summons ought to be issued or not when these numbers are involved? Or, if in fact the information is laid before him at all?