Waste of public funds. They should have to do community work. Prison costs several hundreds of pounds per day, the public get nothing back and it is not much of a deterrent to others.

He will still have to pay this regressive Tax even when released

Sending a 67 year old man to prison for what in reality is nothing more than a bill is abhorrent

The Magistrate can issue attachment of wages or arrest his bank account if self employed

Why is it regressive, the council has to pay for the services it give to me and you somehow ??

An empty house is not using any public services such as bin collections etc

I am not saying he should not pay some contribution, but the full band rate while the house is being renovated and made suitable for habitation is not to much to ask

Its at the councils discretion...can charge 50%

https://www.gov.uk/council-tax/second-homes-and-empty-properties

" You may get a discount if your home is undergoing major repair work "

Figures released for 2013 showed the city council was owed more than £13million in unpaid council tax.

Should Coventry council write that off ?

the changes to taxation on emplty properties were brough in to clobber people who buy properties in London as an investment but are based overseas and also to allow councils to collect unwarranted bonus amounts on holiday homes. It is at the councils discretion as to how much to charge and so Coventry Council are as culpable for this problem as the individual. They could charge zero or 50% but they choose to go for 100%. You will always get problems when you allow any authority to have discretionary powers, they will always default to the maximum.

Should Coventry council write that off ?

Think that sums got a fair few years of bailiff chasing in it yet before its written off.

i wonder if in that figure quoted it includes issued bills altered on appeal (student exemption for example) or where people have gone bankrupt or even cases where people have left the country or passed away.

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?447177-Is-imprisonment-for-council-tax-default-unlawful

Why prison - at his age, he will be able to draw his state pension and the Council can make deductions from that ?

Further, the Act provides that if Council Tax is not paid as required a magistrates' court may make a liability order against a debtor.

 

Deductions from income support

 

6 (1) Regulations under paragraph 1(1) above may provide that where a magistrates’ court has made a liability order against a person (“the debtor”) and the debtor is entitled to income support [a jobseeker’s allowance or state pension credit]

 

(a) the authority concerned may apply to the Secretary of State asking him to deduct sums from any amounts payable to the debtor by way of [that benefit], in order to secure the payment of any outstanding sum which is or forms part of the amount in respect of which the liability order was made; and

 

(b) the Secretary of State may deduct such sums and pay them to the authority towards satisfaction of any such outstanding sum.

 

 

That is exactly the point i was trying to make Citizen.

Prison is supposed to be used to protect the general public from undesirables, not send people to for debt

Looks to me as though they are trying to make an example of him CWK.

Agreed but due to his age, i would think this has back fired rather badly on the council

he was a “stubborn” man who was adamant he should not have to pay council tax on an empty property

JPs had no alternative but to send Edwards to jail because he was in breach of a suspended sentence given in July over the same unpaid bill.

It says: “No other method of enforcement is appropriate as the defendant has shown a complete disregard for outstanding debt and the previous suspended sentence imposed by the court.

“He has informed the court on a number of occasions this morning he will not pay and has no intention to pay.

What alternative did the court have ?

Age doesn't come into it.

You still do not get it do you

This is against the attitude of the council and there enforcement policies to this individual case and the way they have handled it

The prison sentence is secondary

I get it fully, the man refused to pay his council tax because he unilaterally decided he shouldn't. He was eventually taken to court where he again refused. He was sentenced to prison with that sentence suspended.

He continually refused and on the morning he reappeared in court again continued to refuse.

His sentence is not just for non payment, it is for deliberate disobedience of a court.

So what don't I understand ?

I understand why he was imprisoned.. What I don't understand is why, they simply didn't deduct it from his pension when he first refused ?

It is using the criminal justice system as a sledgehammer for debt, which is not a crime

The same a TV license prosecutions

There are other methods such as attachments to benefits etc for enforcement

 

His sentence is not just for non payment, it is for deliberate disobedience of a court.

 

 

So what don't I understand ?

I would have thought, for all practical purposes the sentence was solely for non payment. There would have been no court involvement had the defendant paid it.

They are both taxes, refusal of payment of either is a criminal offence.

In fact imprisonment for debt is illegal in this country,has been since the 1869 debt act. What a person can be imprisoned for is the wilful act of none payment or culpable neglect.

The means test which is compulsory in civil cases like this is to determine that the debtor had the means to pay but did not.

This is not to say that committal for debt does not happen, unfortunate some of our magistrates are "old school", if they cannot pay then lock them up. In cases which are appealed to the the higher court, most convictions are overturned.

Most data for this was gathered in the poll tax days when many were refusing to pay the unpopular tax

But prison is not an alternative to the debt... Its a punitive punishment...the debt remains due on release.

Including this in ctax law, imho, is regressive in nature and serves no purpose other than to be used to extract payment under duress.

Too much power has been devolved to la from cengov, and the wide range of la interpretation is astounding. I would love to make a foi request as to the legal costs incurred by the la, and the cost of imprisonment compared to the debt.

As mentioned prior, there are other disposal methods.

There are other means by which they could have collected ie pension credits, (not pensions), but as has been shown so many times in the past, the Councils are either bone idle and take the easiest way or they get some perverse enjoyment out of doing it the way they have. Perhaps they are trying to say 'you voted us in so you do as we say'.

Perhaps they are trying to say 'you voted us in so you do as we say'.

Agree with the sentiment.

What I disagree with is the policies brought in to subtigate the public, and the fact we are stuck with them with no recourse.

Whilst I don't expect every detail of every policy before I vote, I expect the laws to benefit the public as a whole. I truely believe council tax to be a regressive tax not based on a percentage of income but on 30 year old housing prices.

In the same respect business tax (NNDR) is based on location \ ratable value and has decimated town centers along with the removal of parking etc.

Moving back to topic...

No one is legally imprisoned for debt as said. This has been the case for many years through successive governments since the abolition of the work houses.

The lawful imprisonment is not putative(unlawful imprisonment is) the lawful imprisonment for wilful refusal to pay is coercive.

Of course if you just want to rant about the government I will leave you to it.