Hi all

New to the forum & need a little guidance please.

Have received a letter from a debt collection company "notice of enforcement".

They are saying I owe over £2k from council tax from a property over 6 years ago.

The liability dates were 1/4/2010 to 29/7/2011,

liability order was apparently issued on 13/7/2011.

Letter from debt collectors was sent on 21/08/2017,

can someone please advise where I stand on this?

Any help greatly appreciated

Thanks in advance

A notice of enforcement isn't from a debt collection company, it's from an enforcement agent (they have a lot more powers than a debt collector).

The council can enforce a debt from back to 1993 if they wish - the key aspect is that liability order was obtained within 6 years of the debt becoming due (this being the point when the demand notice was issued showing the amount due). Providing the liability order is obtained within 6 years of the debt becoming due then the order is enforceable until the monies are discharged, there is no time limit.

Make sure that you check you are liable for the charge and amount seems right as there's often things that the council weren't aware of that can affect the charge in your favour (I see that often with my clients).

Craig

Not a debt collection company. It is a bailiff company who have issued notice of enforcement warning you they will visit your house to take controls of goods to sell if necessary to cover the tax liability.

Council tax is not subject to limitation period so does not matter how old it is.

You need to respond to them before they visit to come to a repayment arrangement. Otherwise they will attend and that will incur a enforcement fee. They might target any car on your driveway, if you don't let them into the house to look for goods.

Which company sent the notice of enforcement ?

Hi Craig, cheers for that,

so I'm pretty much screwed then in layman's terms, lol, thanks again for help buddy

A notice of enforcement isn't from a debt collection company, it's from an enforcement agent (they have a lot more powers than a debt collector).

 

The council can enforce a debt from back to 1993 if they wish - the key aspect is that liability order was obtained within 6 years of the debt becoming due (this being the point when the demand notice was issued showing the amount due). Providing the liability order is obtained within 6 years of the debt becoming due then the order is enforceable until the monies are discharged, there is no time limit.

 

Make sure that you check you are liable for the charge and amount seems right as there's often things that the council weren't aware of that can affect the charge in your favour (I see that often with my clients).

 

Craig

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

moved to the bailiff forum

dx

Hi all

New to the forum & need a little guidance please.

 

They are saying I owe over £2k from council tax from a property over 6 years ago.

 

The liability dates were 1/4/2010 to 29/7/2011, liability order was apparently issued on 13/7/2011.

 

Letter from debt collectors was sent on 21/08/2017, can someone please advise where I stand on this?

Have you spoken to the council to ask why they had not taken any enforcement action sooner?

With local authorities desperate for funding, many of them are looking at recovering 'historic' debts. Exactly the same is happening with Magistrates Court fines where there is even an entire administration centre has set up called HMCTS Historic Debt Team.

 

Whilst there is no limitation on the lifespan of a LO, the council would still have some explaining to do if they have simply sat on it for more than 6 years. It could well be deemed maladministration and you could complain to the Local government Ombudsman.

This actual subject was one of the topics at a conference that I attended a short while ago where the LGO provided examples of cases that they would investigate.

Reading back on my notes, the LGO advise given was that if a debt was a small one (the amount of approx £100 was discussed), then they would expect the council to use discretion to write off the debt if they had not attempted enforcement for 6 years following the granting of the Liability Order. However, if the debt was in the low hundreds, a complaint would not be looked at given that local authorities are desperately short of funds and enforcement would be encouraged. Accordingly, a complaint to the LGO, where there is a debt of £2,000 outstanding would not be one resulting in a finding of 'maladministration'.

This actual subject was one of the topics at a conference that I attended a short while ago where the LGO provided examples of cases that they would investigate.

 

Reading back on my notes, the LGO advise given was that if a debt was a small one (the amount of approx £100 was discussed), then they would expect the council to use discretion to write off the debt if they had not attempted enforcement for 6 years following the granting of the Liability Order. However, if the debt was in the low hundreds, a complaint would not be looked at given that local authorities are desperately short of funds and enforcement would be encouraged. Accordingly, a complaint to the LGO, where there is a debt of £2,000 outstanding would not be one resulting in a finding of 'maladministration'.

That's good to know and what I expected - along the lines of "it's all legal but let's use some common sense and proportionality".

Craig

Failure to act in a timely manner is maladministration.

We don't know what the Local Authority has been doing in the meantime - they may have tried and failed to locate the OP until now. Until the question is asked why there's been a delay, which is what is suggested in post#7, then the information won't be known.

Craig

Honest, C Tax payers expect their Council to collect as much unpaid C Tax as possible, perhaps not 1-2 months. The Omdudsman advice is eminently reasonable and would apply to any complaint received. Defaulters can go to prison.

Thank you Craig.

 

That is why I stated in post #8 that if the OP had simply disappeared off the radar, it would be his/her fault.

 

However, if for whatever reason, the council had simply done nothing., then the fault lies with them

Quite possibly any fault does lie with the council in respect of being responsible for a debt not being chased but legally, and in the eyes of the LGO, that fault doesn't always equal maladministration even where there is a delay.

Craig

I would add that defaulters CANNOT go to prison.

 

Imprisonment for council tax applies to those who are guilty of wilful refusal or culpable neglect, NOT those who default.

I bit of a sweeping statement, defaulters are people who miss payments, (breach an agreement) there is nothing within this term that implies why they missed it.

Defaulting on an income tax payment arrangement arrangement or a fine, can, of course, result in imprisonment.

If you say a person cannot be imprisoned for debt as per the 1869 act, you may be nearer the mark

Quite possibly any fault does lie with the council in respect of being responsible for a debt not being chased but legally, and in the eyes of the LGO, that fault doesn't always equal maladministration even where there is a delay.

 

Craig

As you say, the authority could just dig their heels in and say, sorry it is a legal process. Then short of a judicial review there is nothing that can be done.

Well, its shorter than i envisaged, so well done for that.

First para wrong, the question would be if the LGO had the right to override the act, this wud be a judicial review. Next

YOu said that a defaulting debtor cannot be imprisoned, this is nonsense because if they had not defaulted there would have been in action for recovery at all. The action in court determines if the debtor avoided payment or was unable to pay, in both cases he would have defaulted.Next

See above.

The last is just FMoTL nonsense, if you read, it says in accordance unless with the law, economic etc.

More nonesnese .I will say that to suggest something is not possible when there is clearly the ability to do it within the law is naive and misguided.

Are we trying to help the OP or totally confuse them?

To suggest that "nothing can be done short of a judicial review" is of course wholly inaccurate. Indeed, the correct course of action would be to seek determination by way of a valuation tribunal. Personally, I would suggest a complaint to the LGO though.

It's outside of the Valuation Tribunal's remit unless the dispute is over a discount, exemption or liability.

Craig

It's outside of the Valuation Tribunal's remit unless the dispute is over a discount, exemption or liability.

 

Craig

Sorry missed this, yes of course. If the complaint is about how a decision is reached or implemented, it is a job for a judicial review.

Is the OP still here, or have they been frightened off? Significantly they have not posted again since their initial query was answered and they replied at post #4. Well done folks, another discussion thread is the result.

Not according to Alan Murdie, highly respected local taxation barrister it isn't

The tribunal powers are given under S16 of the act "A person may appeal to a valuation tribunal if he is aggrieved by—

(a)any decision of a billing authority that a dwelling is a chargeable dwelling, or that he is liable to pay council tax in respect of such a dwelling; or

(b)any calculation made by such an authority of an amount which he is liable to pay to the authority in respect of council tax.

A dispute over the recovery of debt isn't a valuation tribunal remit - they are there to only determine whether a person is liable and whether the amount charged is correct. Their remit is also shown here https://www.valuationtribunal.gov.uk/your-appeal-type/council-tax/

The OP not read any posts since 10:19 yesterday

Boring...

The OP not read any posts since 10:19 yesterday

Boring...

Indeed. let's hope they got all the info they needed initially.

I don't think that Mr Murdie was suggesting a dispute over the recovery of the debt - More so the liability after such a long, dormant period. Liability of course can be appealed by way of a valuation tribunal.

There is no liability to dispute though (unless the OP is suggesting they shouldn't be named as liable) - the liability in respect of what the valuation tribunal can consider is purely that under Sections 6 - 9 of the LGFA 1992 (and the regulations & orders ancillary to that) which is, effectively, the name that is shown on the demand notice. The liability they can consider has nothing at all to do with any form of recovery or action taken by the council as that is not in their remit.

 

Whilst there is no limitation on the lifespan of a LO, the council would still have some explaining to do if they have simply sat on it for more than 6 years. It could well be deemed maladministration and you could complain to the Local government Ombudsman.

I have searched the Local Government & Social Care Ombudsman's database for any examples of maladministration and there aren't any. I have outlined two decisions from them on this same subject which I have posted in the discussion area of the forum.

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?480710-Local-Government-Ombudsman-decision.....Liability-Order-and-where-no-enforcement-steps-taken-for-6-years.&p=5055421#post5055421

Post 21

I think this is in its entirety, from post 21

"To suggest that "nothing can be done short of a judicial review" is of course wholly inaccurate. Indeed, the correct course of action would be to seek determination by way of a valuation tribunal. Personally, I would suggest a complaint to the LGO though.

Do you now accept you were wrong in this assertion?( my emphasis)

 

For the avoidance of doubt, maladministration would occur if the council had failed to act in a timely manner, ie doing nothing. It would not be maladministration if the debtor had simply disappeared off the radar for more than 6 years. I thought that I had made that point perfectly clear throughout the thread.

The LGO seems to have a great deal of "doubt" in what you say.

"However, case law suggests that once a liability order has been granted the statute of limitations does not apply and there is no time limit to taking action. The Council is therefore entitled to pursue old council tax debts and I cannot be critical of it for doing so."

We seem to have two threads going now.

Both a valuation tribunal and a complaint to the LGO are two viable options available to a debtor in instances where a council has failed to act in a timely manner (for more than 6 years). End of story.

 

I suggest you follow your own advice made in post #32 and leave this thread alone now - That is certainly what I intend to do.

Ahh the "end of story argument, very persuasive. In fact, there is no legal restriction in the time needed to enforce a liability order and as said the valuation tribunal is about the sums on the order not enforcing that sum.