If other agencies I pay bills to acted like SCC they would be seen as bullies and reported to the FSA. I have today recieved a summons from SCC for the privilege of paying them £150 in April and £150 in May, but as I didn't pay on the day they want it as I pay when I have the money, they issued me a summons and added £48 costs. Year after year I pay in full before the next years bill is due, but that seems to make no difference in how I am treated.

I wanted to turn up at court as you would in this situation with any other agency and asked where my papers were to send in a defence. There was no Claim Form or particulars of claim. They really didn't want me to turn up at court, despite saying this was what I wanted to do. They make Dick Turpin look like a pussycat.

If I haven't been served with the Claim Form and the Particulars of Claim then they have not effected service on me I am told.

I have to write and appeal to have the 'Authority costs' of £45 and 'court costs' of £3 removed. Surely these charges cannot ligitimately be demanded?

I am incensed by this action and the fact that they can get away with this and there is no agency that they have to answer to.

I assume this is for Council Tax?

Yes, council tax I have paid but not on the date they wanted it.

Unfortunately the council seems to have acted within the law. The Council Tax is either payable in full at the start of the year or in 10 monthly instalments (commonly known as the "statutory instalment scheme"), or alternately the council can, but isn't obliged to, enter into an agreement with the payer.

Once two instalments go unpaid, the right to pay by instalments is lost and whole amount of council tax becomes payable within 14 days, after which the council can seek a liability order from the magistrates court. Theres no reason why you can not appear in court, however unless you have a compelling defence the court is obliged to issue the LO and award costs against you.

You have a number of recourses if you feel that the council has acted improperly or illegal, such as making a complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman, seeking a Judicial Review at the High Court or, making a complaint to your elected County, District or Borough Councillor.

Thanks. As I stated above, I paid the payment in April and the payment in May so no payments have been missed. Had I missed 2 payments I would have no problem with being threatened with a summons

It is not that you have not missed payments but that you did not pay them by the correct date. We'll assume your supposed payment date is 1st of each month - to pay by this date you actually have to pay some 5 working days previously so that you have paid in cleared funds by the 1st. In reality most Councils do allow a little leeway but only by about a week or so. The only thing the Magistrates are allowed to consider is whether or not you are liable to pay Council Tax, your circumstances and ability to pay do not come into it. To object as to whether you are liable or not is very narrow.

Write a formal letter of complaint to the council, give them 14 days to reply and copy it to the magistrates, if possible go to the council office and ask to see a senior maanger - they did that to me last year despite being told they would get paid in full out of my redundancy, and they tried this route but I went in there with paperwork, insisted they listened to the call I had made and read the letter handed in when they first said I had missed a payment and they backed down. I also pointed out I would NOT be liable due to being unemployed from January and they still insisted I had to pay for January to April until otherwise found out - now claiming back that 'overpayment' from them!

I live a five minute walk from the council offices so I can hassle them easily should it be necessary!

Also did the same with the water board and ended up with the chairman's office dealing with the way they chased for their debts.

Most if not all councils use computerised systems - reminders and summonses are automatically generated after a certain trigger points. An email or letter to the council should clear up the matter, and withdrawal of the costs.

If not you should appear at the Magistrates Court and demonstrate that you paid the instalments each month, or that you paid the reminder notice within the prescribed time.

There are another a couple of reasons why this might also be happening:

1 - The Council use the issue of Liability Orders as another income stream. Average cost to the Council of issuing a LO is £3-00, cost to the ratepayer can be up to £150-00.

2 - Your Council may have outsourced all their admin including revenues to a private company like Capita. The issuing then of a LO will be very quickly followed by a visit from the Bailiff - normally Equita or Ross&Roberts - both of which are owned by Capita.

This is a very dirty business.

If I haven't been served with the Claim Form and the Particulars of Claim then they have not effected service on me I am told.

That would be correct if it was for a CCJ but Council Tax uses a Liability Order granted by a Magistrates Court (as per the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) regs 1992)

I have today received a summons from SCC for the privilege of paying them £150 in April and £150 in May, but as I didn't pay on the day they want it as I pay when I have the money, they issued me a summons and added £48 costs

Thats the way Council Tax legislation works - for it to have progressed to a Summons you mustn't have paid the amount shown on the Reminder within 7 days.

I have to write and appeal to have the 'Authority costs' of £45 and 'court costs' of £3 removed. Surely these charges cannot legitimately be demanded?

They can be , when the Liability Order is granted the court will grant the costs - even if you pay all but the costs the costs are fully recoverable under the Liability Order.

It also makes the Council look squeaky clean in the eyes of the Government when they can reveal very high collection rates on council tax when it comes to getting their allocation of funds for other areas, making them seem very efficient.

In reality it is using the courts as a first line of debt collecting which is against the OFT Guidelines in Debt Collecting, perhaps this could be why the OFT is NOT getting stronger powers to close down delinquent debt collecting firms.....

Warrants granted by a court for coucil tax often happen before the claimed debtor is aware.

Its not an impartial tribunal, just a rubber stamping job.

AFAIR for this reason these 'debts' are not respected outwith the UK.

In reality it is using the courts as a first line of debt collecting which is against the OFT Guidelines in Debt Collecting, perhaps this could be why the OFT is NOT getting stronger powers to close down delinquent debt collecting firms.....

This is my issue, if anyone else I make regular payments to did this it could be reported to FSA as a bullying tactic and against the fair trading guidelines, but councils appear to make their own laws and can act in whatever way they please.

but councils appear to make their own laws and can act in whatever way they please.

The council don't make the law, that's down to central government. The council is as bound to work with the law as you are so they can't choose how to apply it other than as how its written.

So the government has one rule for everyone else in the country and another for themselves, what a surprise!!!

There's been a few posts recently about people using a sort of "in your face(book)" type protests, where they flood the company's FB and Twitter accounts with complaints - in addition to the guy posting yesterday who bought a car that failed - then sat outside the garage warning potential customers, until the garage called the police - who then told the garage to refund his money (though their cheque bounced).

There is no "procedure" for this approach - and I would suspect it could be applied as well to public bodies - and you would have greater control compared to businesses as you can submit FoI requests, which in turn could not be declined as "administration of justice".

I suspect the internet, just like it has with this forum, can empower far more people than we have yet realised.

The council don't make the law, that's down to central government. The council is as bound to work with the law as you are so they can't choose how to apply it other than as how its written.

The only reason that central government can get away with this racket is because there are plenty of people (CEO's of councils comes to mind) who are prepared to screw a large percentage of the council taxpaying public in exchange for their six figure salaries, paid for by those they are screwing.

I am currently paying 51% of my income by an attachment of earnings order on my salary to pay back council tax arrears which built up because when I was unemployed and on JSA. I was on "rapid reclaim" which the council determined as being "back to work" though I only had occasional casual work and my income was at benefit level. My beef is that the legal charges are £1600. Has anyone successfully challenged legal charges because this figure seems excessive and unrelated to actual work done? Can they impose punitive legal charges or are they bound merely to pass on the actual costs of legal action? I am considering asking for a breakdown of their bill and taking them to the Ombudsman if they refuse and I would be interested to know if anyone has been down this route. I wish I had been allowed to go to court to argue the "rapid reclaim" point but I was told that I would not be allowed to speak to the judge.

Never ever believe what the council tell you about court, they do not like people turning up at court as it costs them a lot of money and they would look very very silly if you could prove you had 0 liability for the case anyway.

Put a formal complaint into the council to kick start the process and then go to the Local Government Ombudsman, they can look into this, you could also get a full printout of your liability from the council website (so I believe, I've managed to get it for somebody).

I am currently paying 51% of my income by an attachment of earnings order on my salary to pay back council tax arrears which built up because when I was unemployed and on JSA. I was on "rapid reclaim" which the council determined as being "back to work" though I only had occasional casual work and my income was at benefit level. My beef is that the legal charges are £1600. Has anyone successfully challenged legal charges because this figure seems excessive and unrelated to actual work done? Can they impose punitive legal charges or are they bound merely to pass on the actual costs of legal action? I am considering asking for a breakdown of their bill and taking them to the Ombudsman if they refuse and I would be interested to know if anyone has been down this route. I wish I had been allowed to go to court to argue the "rapid reclaim" point but I was told that I would not be allowed to speak to the judge.

This sounds as if you have more than 1 Liability Order and have even been summonsed for a Committal Hearing. Be interested to know more. You need to speak to someone at the Council and ask the following

questions:

1 - how many Liability Orders they have against you

2 - the dates they were obtained

3 - the addresses they were for

4 - the period of time each covers

5 - how much each one was for

6 - how much is still outstanding

7 - the dates they were passed on for enforcement

8 - the dates & amounts of any payments

yes pm says we are all in it together why dont they stop claiming

expences and live on there high wages