Need some help please a few years ago i could not work and fell behind with my council tax and was taken to court which was my fault and i took it on the chin and agreed to pay the arrears off at £100 per month this plan is up to date and has never been missed.

However the council use the same agreement number for arrears and the currant years tax and this is where the problem is. I was sent a letter to say i had missed payments on the currant years tax which i had not so i spoke to the council and they said they would sort it, next thing i know is a summons is at my door.

So i attend court and provide receipts that show all my payments have been made both on the arrears and on the currant years so both are up to date.

The council do not take records to court so could not comment and asked for the case to be brought back to court in a months time.

So i attend court again and the council admit they have taken this years payments and taken them off the arrears along with the £100 i have been paying for the arrears.

The summons is withdraw so i have now had 2 days off work travel to and from the court because the council made a mistake. I find it hard they they could not have withdrew the summons the moment they found out saving me a day of work and trip to the court so i am planning to sue them for the cost of my days work and travel to court

Not sure you can sue the LA

I have a feeling you should of requested costs at the hearing.

See what others say

Thanks for the reply i did request the costs in court but the judge did not feel they had the power to do so, my main issue is after the first court hearing the council could have withdrew the summons but chose to make me attend court again

Thanks for the reply i did request the costs in court but the judge did not feel they had the power to do so, my main issue is after the first court hearing the council could have withdrew the summons but chose to make me attend court again

Section 64(1) of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 (Power to award costs and enforcement of costs)

What about submitting a complaint to the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office? I bet he didn't think twice about awarding up to £100k to the council for a couple of hours work.

EDIT:

If he was a judge the above link is appropriate. If Magistrates heard your case then you'd have to contact the relevant advisory committee.

have you tried going through the council's official complaints process followed by complaining to Ombudsman if necessary

Section 64(1) of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 (Power to award costs and enforcement of costs)

 

What about submitting a complaint to the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office? I bet he didn't think twice about awarding up to £100k to the council for a couple of hours work.

 

EDIT:

 

If he was a judge the above link is appropriate. If Magistrates heard your case then you'd have to contact the relevant advisory committee.

Seems quite clear to me, in a civil case you would of been able to argue for costs due to the other side acting unreasonable, in fact if you used the strike out/summary judgement process you could avoid it reaching a full hearing and get costs on the LiP £19 ph hour basis.

....i did request the costs in court but the judge did not feel they had the power to do so, my main issue is after the first court hearing the council could have withdrew the summons but chose to make me attend court again

Does this make any sense?

Court Costs and Update (IRRV 30 September 2015) pages 33 and 34

COSTS (CASE LAW)

 

Patel v Camden LBC

 

19th June 2013

 

Queen’s Bench Division Administrative Court

(Silber J)

 

Summary

 

This was a case stated on appeal against a refusal of a Magistrates’ Court to make an order for costs against the billing authority under Section 64 Magistrates Court Act 1980, when dismissing applications by the billing authority for liability orders against the appellant for Non-Domestic Rate.

 

• Legislation
  

-­

Section 64

Magistrates Court Act 1980

-­Schedule 9 Local Government Finance Act 1988

-­Non-­Domestic Rating (Collection and Enforcement) (Local Lists) Regulations 1989 (S.I.1989/1058)

• Key Facts
  

-­The billing authority applied for a liability order against Mr Patel which was refused; they also argued that liability orders issued against other companies in respect of 159-­161 Camden High Road, London should be set aside; again, this was refused

-­The ratepayer applied for costs against the billing authority which was refused

• Decision
  

-­The application for costs should be refused

-­It was held the billing authority had acted honestly and reasonably in pursuing the applications for the liability order; as a consequence, costs should not be awarded

Does this make any sense?

 

Court Costs and Update (IRRV 30 September 2015) pages 33 and 34

HHmm.. 'honesty and reasonably' are open to interpretation, if the evidence in front of it suggested the amount was owing then fair enough, BUT if the evidence if properly looked at at clearly showed that nothing was in fact owing then I would of thought a Judge should suggest that the case should never have been started and the defendant be entitled to costs. Surely it would then fail the 'reasonably' test ?