There is no requirement for them to do so. In any case they cannot do so anyway whilst they are using enforcement action against you for the same debt. You will see the initial fee with each liability order for the £75 whereas charging of the £235 for each case depends on the situation regarding each enforcement agent and what cases they had and when. Have you obtained a statement from the enforcement agents for each account to show when and where fees and payments have been applied to the outstanding balances ? Simply stating that the fees are illegal will not get you anywhere, you need to be able to specifically challenge why they are wrong in your view.

That fact you may have received council tax benefit/council tax reduction doesn't prevent the council from pursuing the remaining balance. If the balance on the demand notice(s) for which they are relying has not been cleared in full and the reminder not complied with then they will proceed to issuing the summons. How much the council will settle for is up to them when it comes to a payment arrangement, they can refuse to agree a formal arrangement if they wish and go straight for collection of the full balance. Only your local council can tell you what their own policy for recovery is.

There's certainly been failings of procedure, as I've said for a long time the Magistrate's rely on the clerk for legal guidance so where they are so badly wrong then the clerk should be taken to task for the procedural failings. If procedure was correct then they may well have been jailed anyway but the failure to means test and determine wilful refusal/culpable neglect first is something the clerk should be pulled up for not advising on.

Within council tax legislation itself there's nothing specific which prevents another form of enforcement being used providing that more than one form isn't used at the same time. It is blissfully silent on what happens after imprisonment to the amount remaining. Remission by the court can only be made under Reg 48(3) where a prison sentence isn't handed down. The issue of enforcement after a prison sentence, assuming monies remain unpaid, is an interesting one. In the entire time I worked for a local authority they never did committal so it was not an issue under consideration as to what can happen afterwards. In principal the sentence is a means of leverage to pay, not in lieu of payment so the sentence itself does not remit the charge. What happens afterwards however has been discussed by the High Court before, there's not be a clear cut consensus though as I'm not aware of any case where enforcement has been continued and challenged at the High Court. In R (on the application of Allen) v Wirral Justices in 2000 they considered an unreported case, R v Alfreton Magistrates, ex parte Darren Gratton , where the Judge stated that ". . . we all know now as a result of a number of decisions that community charge liability should only be visited with prison (if I may use that shorthand expression) if there is no other way in which the money can be extracted. Prison is not to be used as a big stick or primarily as punishment but as a means of extracting the liability. For example, a prison sentence can be postponed pending payment of so much off the arrears. The object of the exercise is to collect the money from those who chose wilfully not to pay it and thus piled the liability onto their fellow community charge payers, rather than simply to throw them in prison and not extract the money. If the full sentence is served, the liability is of course extinguished." (my emphasis). I've not currently come across any more up to date case law regarding the matter however the decision does seem to be rather counter-intuitive in its the reasoning. I've never heard of anyone being jailed twice for the same council tax debt, I'm not sure I can think of anyone being jailed twice for different council tax debts. In cases where debt is partially paid the sentence will be apportioned under the Reg 47(7), the sentence remitted if full payment is made before it finishes, rather than the debt being reduced by part service of the sentence. If there's cases where the latter has occurred I'd be interested to see as it's not directly covered by the regulations

You don't have to physically attend the hearing if you don't want to - unless you have a valid dispute against the issuing (which are very limited) then the court will grant the liability order - the reason for falling behind with payments is not something that the court can consider. Speaking to the council is always a good idea but the fact that you told them you were struggling doesn't put any legal requirement on them to cease or hold action - you could contacting them and explaining the situation nicely, they may give you a break and withdraw it. What you may also want to look at is a Section 13A discretionary reduction (google search for it). Also make sure that you are receiving any council tax discounts you are eligible for - if you are the only adult then a 25% discount can be claimed. If they won't withdraw the action and you think you can clear the balance by the end of the year (inclusive of the court costs) then ask the council for an arrangement - they will still obtain the liability order as part of the process but no further enforcement action would be taken providing you pay.

There are no 'specified' defences as such in council tax law - as far as defences go a magistrate cannot consider anything which would fall under the jurisdiction of the valuation tribunal. Any dispute over the issuing of documentation and whether the legislative process has been followed in this certainly falls within the remit of the magistrate however and not that of the tribunal. The council's argument will likely be that all documents were correctly served at the time to the last known address and that, as they have just been informed, they re-issued the summons to ensure it was served. You would need to argue that the summons cannot be correct as the documents it is based on, the demand notice and reminder, were not served correctly as the address was wrong. I would expect that the magistrates would side with the council unless you can show the council knew they were not sending documents to the last known address - service just requires it to be sent to that address. It would be difficult to argue that service was wrong on the basis of information that was provided only after the event (which is what they seem to believe) however you have a good argument if you can show you notified them of the address changed and documents were issued after that date. You would, at least initially, be better off contacting the council and arguing that they'd told you it would be withdrawn and the action re-started. Also raise the issue of the address having been provided and not used. In all the years I worked in council tax I've never known a case to transferred to another court (or even for it to be requested), I'm not even sure if there is a procedure for it to be done as council tax is an odd bedfellow with the magistrates' court when it comes to procedure.

The council tax year runs from 1 April to 31 March. There is no requirement for the council to halt or delay any action on the basis that a council tax reduction claim has been made - until the moment it's credited to the council tax account then it has not direct effect on the amount outstanding. Some councils will hold action if a claim is in place but it's at their discretion.

Technically there's no requirement to tell them unless you receive a discount or exemption (or received CTB/CTR) - it's unfortunate that a lot of people don't always tell the council and it's invariably in cases like this where that has happened.

Assuming you're in England or Wales. A tenant doesn't have to be resident in a property to remain liable for the council tax charge after vacating it so, although an indicator of possible vacation, lack of rent payments etc aren't conclusive to the council. Whether liability continues after residency ends or not depends on the tenancy agreement - if the council are provided with a tenancy agreement that appears to be valid then the determination made, based on that, may be correct. Whether the tenancy agreement is correct or not is another question but ultimately the decision on liability is that of the local authority and, if they won't move on it, something which a valuation tribunal would need to make a decision on. The appeal process is free but there are agencies out there who can assist with it, if required.

The Class E exemption for being resident in a care home runs as long as is required - until the property is sole/tenancy ends or someone moves in. The requirement is that property ceases to be her 'sole or main residence' due to the move in to the care home. Strictly speaking the circumstances where you have to declare a change to the council for council tax purposes are quite limited - if there was no discount or exemption in place then you're not required to tell them unless they make a formal application to gather the information (which they can do in specified cases) If she was living on her own, getting a single person discount and hasn't declared that single person discount entitlement has ended then that would be a breach of legislation and can be subject to a penalty (potentially further legal action for discount fraud but that's highly unlikely in this sort of case) if not reported within 21 days. Once the council have that information then they can make the determination off their own back as to what discounts/exemptions then apply.

The summons/liability order fee is fixed in Wales at £50 and £20 - so you have 2 liability orders there with the two lots of £70 but it appears you have at least one more on top of that. After the summons etc though the fees depend on what sort of action has been taken - some , such as enforcement agents are (in most cases) fixed fees. Other actions depend on the costs involved in the process. To get to the level of fees you have mentioned there has to have been enforcement action above that which you have listed. It is quite possible to get more than one summons issued for a particular year where circumstances have changed during the year.

In respect of council tax , The council tax penalty under regs 3 & 4 of A&E regs isn't one that is dealt with by the courts - the appeal process for it is via the valuation tribunal once the council have issued the penalty. This penalty is £70 then £280. http://lgfa92.co.uk/penalty-for-not-providing-council-tax/ If the notice that was issued was under regulation 36 - that is post liability order - then the court will deal with any fine for not providing/providing false information. This is £500 / £1000.

Benefit overpayments aren't always able to be included in a bankruptcy so you'd need to check.

DWP will not initiate the attachment of benefit order without the correct request being made - they'll bounce the request back if the details aren't as required. That is immaterial to the attachment of benefit order being issued - once the council have the liability order they can issue the attachment of benefit order to DWP. They don't need your agreement to do so as the liability order allows them to recover the monies. Whether your are disputing the debt or not is not a relevant matter to them issuing it nor is whether you are struggling with payments.

As above - all you can do at this stage to get the background is to speak with your local authority . There's a myriad of situations which could have occurred so it's a case of finding out what did actually happen. The local authority are required only to send the paperwork to the last known address, if that was the actual property then all mail will have (correctly) been sent there.

It was a comment on DB's post - which, of course, addresses the earlier points you raised that the removal of the 14 day notice as an 'unintended consequence'. I'm sure DB will correct me if I misunderstood their post. Craig

It should of course read reg45A, not s45A. Craig

Exactly - The 2014 Order which removed s45A was clear in that it was to be omitted. It's quite clear the intention was to replace it entirely with the new procedure for notification and enforcement by agents.

Which is spot on, because they're not legally bound (The issues raised were brought up to a Barrister when I was working for a council and they came to the same conclusions - although at the time the council did put the request for information and bailiff notice in the same envelope as they decided it was the way they wanted to work) If it was a legal requirement there would have been more than High Court case on the matter by now... (to save people checking, there are precisely non recorded in the case reports held by Lexis) Again, the guidance suggests information is gathered and notification is made but it's still only guidance, no matter how you try and dress it up.

Whether or not a Local Authority decides to use an AOE or an Enforcement Agent is entirely their choice - if they decide to withdraw and use an AOE instead then that is purely for their ow reasons. Over the years I have withdrawn hundreds of cases from enforcement agents and instead used AOBs / AOEs simply because it was the better form of action to use all round. Yes, if an Regulation 36 had been replied issued (in most cases it was though and had been ignored) then Local Authority policy was use to the AOB/AOE if it was the better option but the choice was purely that of the Local Authority and how they decided they wanted to play it. You could ask the Local Authority to withdraw whatever action they've taken and replace it with another form of action at point, whether they do so or not is their prerogative. By all means you're free to argue your point but stating that legislation is overruled by guidance and policy is misleading in the least when you're offering it as a way for people to dispute action that has been taken.

The same point that seems to keep coming up again and again, and in deed keeps up going around in circles, is the difference between guidance and legislation. Whilst the various CTax practice notes (and National Standards) can be helpful (and they've helped me out a few times over the years) they can only provide guidance on how the DCLG etc etc would like something to be interpreted, they cannot override legislation itself. This is a very important provision and prevents legislation being played around with simply by issuing guidance to a department. Unless there was a statutory provision that the guidance was to form part of the legal process, as is the case, for example, with the CPR's, then they can never be more than guidance. While it would be nice for the notification of a Liability Order being granted to be a legal requirement until the legislation is changed there is no requirement for the Local Authority to go beyond the statutory requirements to notify the debtor. As it stands the Regulation 36 notice is no more a requirement than using an Attachment of Earnings Order - i.e it is optional. Yes, having the debtors financial information can be handy and is a sensible option - I used to issue the Regulation 36 notices in as many cases as possible to get the details as it makes decisions far easier- but it is not a requirement to do so.

I never mentioned the word 'prior' - that's because the regulations don't need it. The notification happens when an enforcement action is used (i.e. the enforcement agents 7 day notice or the attachment of benefit letter). Reasonable is not a specific consideration of the legislation - no-one has said it wouldn't be ideal for the council to tell people, only that there is no legal requirement for them to do so.

In summary; There is no requirement in Council Tax legislation to inform the debtor of a liability order having been granted except by virtue of the required notifications issued when the form of enforcement is undertaken (reference to the liability order is required as part of the action being taken,). The National Standards on taking control of goods makes it clear that "This national guidance does not replace local agreements, existing agency codes of practice or legislation" and "We recognise this document is not legally binding".

I too would be interested - simply because there is no direct provision in legislation for this. As it stands the only notification a person is required to receive that an order has been granted is that the any form of enforcement agent must make reference to the granting of the order - so it is there is an roundabout way if the council use an enforcement option.

I would say to ring them and try to ascertain the full situation as it stands at the moment as far as they are aware. I always say to establish exactly what the council's view of the situation, is what they're doing now and what they plan to do. That way the full position can be established and a plan made as to what to do next. Craig