Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by ss002d6252

  1. Every council is different on what happens when a exemption ends. The problem with a Class C exemption - now a Class C discount - is that it requires two conditions to be met but both of these can be met during the period of another exemption, such as the Class F. It effectively times out alongside the longer running Class F . It depends on what the council offer whether or not the Class C still offers any reduction after the Class F ends.
  2. For a council tax AOE they just have to send it to whoever appears to be the employer, there's no requirement in council tax legislation for them to take extra steps to confirm that a person is still employed. They do not have the ability to verify employment with HMRC for council tax attachment of earnings. The N56 form does not apply for council tax purposes.
  3. For Wales it is, due to them abolishing it, but the same legal arguments would apply in England - I've not come across any cases where the Woolcock matter has made any difference as the courts are being far more careful than they were. If I remember rightly the Welsh courts were handing down proportionally more committal/suspended committal cases than in England. Craig
  4. Wilful refusal or Culpable Neglect. The Woolcock case was an error by the Magistrates on the basis that they did not undertake a means enquiry prior to issuing the original suspended sentence. If that had been carried out correctly the situation may well have ended up with a sentencing exercise that was legal on the facts as the court saw them. We'll never fully know though as the case was thrown out by the higher courts without being remitted back for another hearing.
  5. True, but as he's using an English authority, Havant, imprisonment is still an option
  6. What usually happens, and I've seen more than a few in my years working in council tax, is that they make a fuss right up until enforcement action is taken and then they disappear off in to the ether without any further updates. Typically because their master plan has failed and the council have bankrupted them or they've ended up with a suspended sentence hanging over them.
  7. A Scottish council tax charge can be appealed to the Valuation Appeals Committee - Regulation 22 of the The Council Tax (Alteration of Lists and Appeals) (Scotland) Regulations 1993 sets out the statutory time limes. The fact that it may have been paid and/or enforcement action taken does not prevent the substantive liability being disputed.
  8. Unless an appeal is made within the 6 months time limit then all you can do is to ask them to review the band - outside the 6 months there is no formal right to appeal their decision if the decline your request.
  9. It makes no difference at all as he isn't resident - it would only make a difference if the house was to become empty (and then non-resident joint owners become liable). Yes - they have confirmed it was wrong (told you so ) Yes , but they it appears they want to write off the balance to settle the account No Unlikely but you could ask. Only the LGO would have the powers to actually 'suggest' compensation and that would be unlikely where the council are already offering to write off the balance.
  10. A summons must be issued at least 14 days prior to the date of the hearing.
  11. If she's not longer resident then she is no longer liable for any council tax charge on the property whilst it is occupied by you. Is she actually named on the tenancy as a joint tenant ? I've never heard of the tenancy being given in two names but only one party contracting to actually pay the rent.
  12. The fact that they have an email address is immaterial as it's not a contact method they are required to use. In January you received a notice from the council - did you contact them to make an arrangement or have you simply left it from then to now without any action ? Do you mean 14 August ? You mention they handed you a notice - I would suspect that was possibly your 7 day notice - do you have a copy of it you can post (obscuring identifiable details).
  13. To do you so you would need to ensure you follow the correct statutory process - My day job is dealing with council tax appeals and disputes against councils. One thing I do find is that some councils are far more difficult to work with than others, some I manage to resolve before tribunal quite easily, some will fight it all the way. It all depends on how far the council want to push the issue and how entrenched they are in their view (the council only have to say that they don't believe you qualify, they only have to state their case if it was for a tribunal). To me though, You do seem to have an arguable point on what you have posted to support your position. Primary residence is not a concern for council tax, it is 'sole or main residence' which is looked at. There is only case law to try and define what this actually is, however. That's not going to be of too much assistance - CTR will not be paid because they have determined he was resident for council tax purposes and therefore the CTR claim follows this decision. Obviously the argument is that he was, in fact, resident. If the determination is overturned then CTR can be looked at again.
  14. Liability orders are not orders that are posted out - the liability order is simply the court order that is granted, there is no requirement to notify you that it has been granted. Some councils will write out to say one has been granted but they don't have to. A person can be liable on any number of properties at a time, council tax is not just limited to one (or two) properties. The local government ombudsman can look from the point of view of a council acting incorrectly from a procedural point of view however they cannot interfere with the actual liability order as it is outside of their powers to do so. Any complaint to the ombudsman which can be made does not prevent the council recovering monies in the meantime. Liability may be disputed but that would need a valuation tribunal if you couldn't resolve it with the council.
  15. Yep, no CCJ as it's via Magistrates' rather than County Court. It's also not noted on your credit record. Where a CCJ would be needed, for a charging order, the Liability Order is used in lieu of a CCJ. In effect the Liability Order allows the council to manage the recovery rather than a CCJ where each action has to be made via the court. Craig
  16. There is no CCJ needed for council tax - the liability order is the 'equivalent' for council tax but gives a wider range of powers. Depending on what the council tax balance is then you may have further issues on that side - have you contacted the council regarding withdrawal of the enforcement agents on the basis of vulnerability ? I would also suggest an application for a section 13A(1)(c) discretionary relief (google it for more details).
  17. I dealt with a case that's just ended after around 2 months of back & forwards just to get the result I told them was correct from the very start - if they'd listened it would have saved plenty of time (and money). Drove me to distraction (and the client felt worse) before someone with a bit sense finally looked. No it doesn't - POA has no effect on council tax liability
  18. If you clear the council tax + costs then, if there are only the enforcement agent fees remaining, the agent can take civil action against the fees if they so wished.
  19. It's all very confusing. In respect of withdrawal of liability orders then it is only strictly speaking available on application by the council under s82 of the LGA2003, in which case an order can be quashed. The other way would be to ask the court to re-open the hearing and decide again whether or not the order should be granted (effectively restarting the hearing) so not technically withdrawing anything. (Apologies for the any typos- my keyboard is knackered and doesn't like fast typing (something has been spilt on it I think as the keys are sticking) ).
  20. Possibly. 'Withdrawal of offences' is not terminology that would be used with liability orders (unless it had perhaps been taken for committal& withdrawn - in which case only the committal action is ceased, not the actual liability order itself) . There's something odd abut this one nut unless the OP comes back to provide far more details the I'd say we're at a standstill.
  21. The balance on the liability orders is a provable debt (without a liability order that debt is not provable) - whether or not there is enough other debt under the Insolvency Act to top it up to £5k or more is another matter (it's possible that he has other debts that can be rolled in from the council etc). There is no time limit on enforcement on a liability order once it's been obtained so there's no time limits in respect of the Limitation Act 1980 (That's already been considered and dismissed by the courts). As long as the original liability orders were obtained within 6 years of the amount being billed for then there's no issue i respect of the liability orders being obtained in the first place.
  22. Reg 49 states that " For the purposes of this regulation the amount due is an amount equal to any outstanding sum which is or forms part of the amount in respect of which the liability order was made " so it's very woolly but it should include the liability & summons costs. It is silent on bankruptcy costs. As council tax legislation does not set any limit on the amounts that can be claimed in bankruptcy (and effectively only provides that a liability order is to be considered a provable debt) I would expect that the standard Insolvency Act rules would apply as to whether or not costs can be added to the debt or not etc etc. Until the OP clarifies what's in place and what isn't then it's difficult to say more.
  • Create New...