In a nutshell. I had a business in Glasgow but now live in Manchester. A summons was raised for liability against me in Glagow and I attended the hearing. I was v close to having it struck out there but a request was made for a position statement from me and then a reply from the council. Before adjournment I asked about my costs as the travel alone was close to 200 miles each way plus time to get there. I mentioned this is court and the advisor did mention "Ex Parti costs" if I won but to be fair, I didnt understand but it sounded like I could claim this back if won. The council have emailed me and muttered this that and the other but said " "the Council will oppose an application and case law does allow public bodies to pursue legal proceedings “without fear of exposure to undue financial prejudice if the decision is successfully challenged.” So they are saying they can drag me 400 miles twice and theres nothing I can do about it. I was going to instruct a solicitor because I struggled to speak at the hearing but now they are saying even if I win, I wont get my costs. Is this true? Also on the day, they issued 600 summons at cost of £60. £36,000 for 1 morning s attendance. Thanks

Don't know if anyone can help with this! I rented my flat to a tenant in 2013. He didn't pay his council tax. Every few months the council would send me a bill for council tax after which I would send them all the documentation (tenancy agreements etc.) showing that I was not the person liable for the tax. They would then put the liability back in the tenants name. This once went so far as to me receiving a summons which was withdrawn on producing the required documents. In November I received another demand. I phoned the council and sent in the requested documents. However, I then received a summons. I phoned again, they said the summons was sent in error and there was no further action (this is recorded on the council file) and a confirmation of withdrawl would be sent to me. I am busy - I forgot about it until the day of the summons and phoned them to ask where my confirmation of summons withdrawl was. I was told they had no record of any of my calls – I ran to the magistrates court to the hearing. At the magistrates court I met the council prosecutor before the hearing, produced all my documents, after which she agreed to withdraw the summons and said I didn’t need to attend the hearing. Two weeks later I received a liability order. The prosecutor continued with the hearing after I had left the court. I have written to the court to have the Liability order set aside but after a month I have heard nothing. No phone numbers let you speak to anyone..... What are my options / way forward?

Hello, I have recently received a liability notice from the P.C.P enforcement agency. I was advised by my colleagues that I should ignore a parking ticket that I recieved whilst parked on hospital grounds whilst at work. I got a PCN letter sent to my house addressed to me and ignored that too. Subsequently have now recieved a liability notice which has got me a little twitched. Should I continue to ignore this letter or pay it? I did phone the company who states it is too late to appeal and was advised to email a company that when checked on Google has no links to parking from what I can tell?! This company has nothing to do with parking... I'm so confused??? I don't want to go to court which the letter states will be the next action unless I pay £100 fine?! Can anyone help?

Hi hope someone can help, Me and 2 other friends shared a house from December 2014 to April 2015. Me and 1 friend said we would pay the rent on the house whilst the other friend paid for all the bills, which was a lot cheaper than the rent. I had a letter sent through to my current address from the council saying there was a Liability order granted from the magistrate in July 2015 ( I have not revived any correspondence from the council up until now). It also states on the letter that they had an attachment of earning order from the friend, which means they would of taken money from the salary but my friend got sacked from the job and no money has been taken. the whole amount is still payable. I requested a statement of account from the council and all 3 names are on the account. Question is who is liable, all 3?

In March 2015 I was taken to the local magistrates court for certain council tax bills (briefly, I told the local council where I was living and they refused to update their records [the house was subject to a compulsory purchase order and the council wanted to pretend that the house was unoccupied] until I took them to a tribunal. They then updated their records and billed me for 5 years of council tax). The magistrate refused to grant a liability order for this old disputed council tax. I have paid recent council tax bills and I have a considerable amount of proof that I have done this (I even wrote on cheques what I was paying - where appropriate the cheques state it was full and final payment for the relevant year). The council has reallocated recent payments against the old disputed council tax and, after several adjournments, obtained liability orders for £5k of more recent, undisputed council tax bills in January 2016. I have stated that I have now paid these bills once and I have sent evidence of this to the council and their bailiffs. When I get a response it is that their records show a balance outstanding which they would like paid. The bailiffs are now "preparing papers" for an enforcement visit. I wont let them in but I am worried that they might take my car which I park on the street. This is a saga that, together with the compulsory purchase order, has dragged on for a decade. I would love to put it all behind me and get on with my life. I've done a Local Government Ombudsman Complaint and written to my MP & local Councillor without making progress. Any thoughts would be welcome.

Hi all. I have today received a Notice of Enforcement from Rossendales, it is relating to a council tax liability order from 2011. I had made an arrangement with the local council to pay back monthly which was quite a low amount as I was on JSA. rather stupidly we never set up a direct debit and paid via online or payment card as and when we had the money by the due date. Unfortunately after paying regularly for a couple of years we missed a few payments ( I thought the wife was paying it she thought I was!) I called the council and tried to get the plan back on track and they would only accept a one off payment for the arrears £80 and then carry on the original plan at £20 per month. To my absolute horror when I checked my notes from the call after receiving this notice today, the £80 payment was due on the 15th of September, I had it in my mind that that it was due 15th of October! The enforcement notice is demanding full payment or agreement of a payment arrangement for £1466.20 no later than 23:59 on the 15th of October! Does anyone know if these people will actually listen to my circumstances and agree a reasonable repayment plan as I cannot pay the full amount and in all honesty could not afford more than probably £30 - 40 per month . I'm not going to go fully into figures but my monthly salary is just under £1200 my wife works part time and my Rent alone is £700pm (Due to rise soon) my current council tax £139pm without Gas and Electric etc etc plus also the monthly living costs of 3 of us Eating etc! I know I'm not the only one with problems but any advice anyone can give me would be greatly appreciated , I actually feel physically sick after opening the letter and after surfing around a bit and reading things like the Bailiffs will take your car! I am very worried! (BTW the car was paid for by my mother in law as we were without one for 2 years, but it is in my wife's name and is probably only worth about £300) I am not completely naive regarding Baliffs and know not to let them in etc Thanks in advance Simon

We & neighbour are social housing tenants. Received call from neighbour asking if we heard the sound of cracking glass. She explained that her bathroom window had just cracked. We looked at the external window and nothing untoward was noticed from outside. However, it could be seen that the outer pane of glass (window is bathroom window double glazed) was intact, but the interior appeared to have a star shaped crack, emanating from the centre. We then looked at the cracked interior pane in her bathroom. All looked as it should be, clean, everything in its place and nothing out of place. It could be seen that the interior pane of glass did have a crack. At this stage it was unknown what could have caused this. Neighbour then explained that when she reported the cracked pane that she was told she would be liable for the cost of the repair-£57 to be boarded up or £107 for new window. It may be that when this was reported landlord repairs office were not fully understand which pane of glass had cracked or how! So, question is, exactly who is or should be liable? We have checked the wording in tenants handbook, and it raises the point, that as the cracked window pane was not due to damage, intentional or accidental, it is hard to see how landlord can charge for this repair. It could clearly be seen that the pane of glass had cracked 'on its own', and after a little further research it can only be that this is down to 'thermal stress', which is not covered in the tenant handbook. As this is ambiguous, am looking for some assistance to direct me to a definite answer, preferably which aids our neighbour! Many thanks.

I have received a Council Tax Liability Order because I was one month behind on my Council Tax. Ive now paid the month of October this year and Im now back up to date. Ive been paying it monthly, but not always on the date it was due. The liability order was issued on the 28th Sept and they want a sum way over what I owe for the rest of the year. I make it that I owe another 3 months of Council Tax (Nov, Dec and Jan) What do I do now?

typoIn 2011 I went into bankruptcy, I “gave up” some buy to let properties as they went into the BR pot. After approx 12 months I was discharged. One such property, in negative equity, the lender appointed an LPA Receiver and any council tax arrears as a result of the property being empty and unrented were paid by the lender, please see below a breakdown of payments, after my discharge from bankruptcy: 31.10.14 - £564.66 09.07.15 - £341.41 09.02.16 - £486.00 The property is not deemed to be Mortagee in Possession whereby the lender is liable for the council tax, however the lender is indeed acting as mortgagee in possession. Furthermore I have had no dealings or say in the rental or potential sale. Do I have a case to prepare to take to court?

Hello. My second post, I think. I bought a matinee ticket to see Lisa Dwan at the Old Vic. I live in Yorkshire and bought an Advance Return train ticket to London - non-transferable, of course. About a week before the performance OV emailed me to say, without any explanation, that they had had to cancel this matinee and would be refunding my ticket shortly. I immediately emailed them to explain that they also owed me for my train ticket and why. They said - and this is core - they were not liable for any loss sustained by this cancellation other than the ticket money. "Pay up in full by four days' time or I'll see you in the County Court", I said." There will be no more discussion on this". They then said that "in this special case" they would refund my train fare too. "Some time soon". I told them - "You now have two days' to have that cheque in my hands or I'll see you in the CC." They paid without demur. The cheque was with me next day. BUT - had I not insisted, threatened, kept to a very tight timetable, in short if I'd not been bloody-minded, they'd have got away with this. Maybe this was a "special case". But if it wasn't, shouldn't it be better known by the public that all financial losses incurred by failure to fulfill a contract, in this case putting on a show in exchange for money, are to be borne by the party breaking said contract?

Our landlord is revenge evicting us after we pushed for repairs to the property. On reviewing our tenancy documentation it is clear the agent he used did not provide all the prescribed information required. We want to sue for the deposit return plus penalty award. We are aware the landlord is ultimately responsible but the agent signed the deposit scheme forms and managed the process. We feel the landlord may suggest it was therefore not their fault and minimise the penalty whilst the agent deals with many properties and our expectation of going thru them was for due diligence and process to be followed which warrants a higher penalty. So we want to sue both parties . Is this advisable and if so, how would any award by the judge be applied? As a relevant factor, we are suing in respect to the original deposit against a tenancy agreement for 12 months in 2013-2014. We signed another 12 months 2014-2015. From what I've read elsewhere it appears we can sue twice ie for the failure to comply with the PI of the 2007 Order for the first agreement then again for the second agreement . Indeed that 2nd agreement then rolled over to monthly renewable so is that a 3rd instance of noncompliance? So the deposit amount is£1200. We wish to apply for the maximum penalty of 3x 1200 being 3600 plus the deposit of 1200 making a total of £4800. And if this apples for both 12 month terms then the total settlement is £9600. Is this correct?

Myself and wife have a number of long standing liability orders outstanding with our local authority in relation to council tax. These mainly come about due to our sons illness and our own subsequent illness from a car accident 6 years ago. We have never refused to pay, but cannot in anyway afford to pay the ridiculous amounts our authority is asking. To further complicate this my wife has made two attempts on her life in the last 9 months, I believe if this goes to Bailiffs I am fearful she will finally carry out what she has attempted over the last 9 months. Her GPS and Psychologist are aware of her mental fragility. We have been trying without success to get our local authority to deduct these liability orders from our benefits, however they refuse to even when considering my wife's vulnerability. My question is there any way of getting these liability orders back to a judge so he can make the decision to attach to our benefits. We need these attaching to our benefits so I can assist my wife getting the mental treatment she requires without the stress of her wanting to end her life when Bailiffs turn up. Trust me when I say we have tried everything over the past two years, even the Local Government Ombudsman ruled in our favour two years ago. So what did the council do absolutely nothing for 20 months only to start their abusive process again in the last 2 weeks. I think the court is the only body able to bring this matter to a close.

In October 2002 I was employed as a holding manager for a pub company running a pub in Liverpool. About 10 weeks later, I recieved notification that the pub company had since sold the pub to Enterprise Inns, who asked would I remain at the site to run the establishment until a suitable tenant could be found. In March 2003 following arguments and issues with Enterprise Inns, I left the property, or more to the point, they sought an eviction notice asking me to leave, which I believe was all legal and above board. About 5 years later, I received a letter from a Bailiff coompany regarding unpaid business rates amounting to £7100 for the period I was running the pub. I rang Liverpool council who took note that I was disagreeing with the liability order, and thats the last i heard till about 3 years ago when yet again they contacted me about the liability order again. So I rang them yet again, told them I was not liable for the business rates, and yet again nothing more until now. Now they have appointed Rossendales to come to my house to collect the outstanding amount of £6880. I have contacted Rossendales and they have said they would not cease action until the council tell them to. I was never liable for this debt because I was simply a caretaker manager, never a business owner. My job was to run the pub on their behalf, getting paid a self employed % of the takings. I have written to the council to tell them I want to appeal the liability order, but being honest, I don't have a clue actually how to do it. Is there anyone who can help with some advice on what precisely I need to be doing.

I have a query relating to a situation my partner finds herself in. This is happening in Scotland if it makes a difference. A little background first to let you know why we find ourselves in this position: My partner rents a house at the moment and the tenancy is managed by a letting agency. She has lived in the property for around 6 years, slightly more, and in January this year renewed her tenancy for a further 6 months. She did this knowing we were about to begin looking for our first home together, however we both felt it was a good idea to give ourselves some time without having to worry about a roof over her head. At the time of renewing she inquired with the letting agency whether a shorter-term lease might be available but was told 6 months was the minimum they would offer. She agreed to that, however she was told that at any time she could pay them £180 to readvertise the house. If they found another suitable tenant the tenancy would transfer and she would no longer be liable for the remaining rental period. We thought that seemed a bit steep but agreed. Move forward a month and we have quite unexpectedly found a house we love, we've bought it and get the keys in a few weeks time. As a consequence my partner popped into the letting agency, paid the £180 and they readvertised the house. Within a day they found someone who wanted the house and paid a holding deposit. As far as we know they haven't signed any formal agreement yet, however the letting agency are no longer advertising the house. I'm finally getting to my question you'll be delighted to hear. We checked with the letting agency about what would happen if this new tenant pulled out. We were more than a little shocked to hear that they plan to hold my partner liable for the rent up to the end of the 6 month period. That probably seems quite reasonable, except that she paid her £180, they readvertised for less than 24 hours and found a new tenant. Can they really take her money, essentially not readvertise the house, yet continue to hold her liable?

Hi I know it's Christmas but really hope someone can help me out urgently, I've had a claim through from cabot financial with 'right hassle' acting on their behalf for a very old Egg account. I submitted the AOS now need to put together a defence in the next 2-3 days and submit by thursday next week (i think that's the deadline having used the 33 day from service calc). Claim details/points Claimant - CABOT FINANCIAL (UK) LIMITED Address for docs & payments - WRIGHT HASSALL LLP Date of issue – 24/11/14 POC - POC ATTACHED but I can type this out if need be. [ATTACH=CONFIG]54992[/ATTACH] - Not sure if important but POC seems to include a mistake or two: using # symbols instead of £, also they quote a #19,***.** balance for the debt (far in excess of the c14K at close of account!?) and then go on to ask for interest of exactly the same total: "The Claimant therefore claims the sum of #19,***.** interest under s89 County Courts Act 1984 and costs." surely this is wrong and a basis to defend/strike out? Claim Value - ALMOST £20,000 Original Creditor - EGG (Card Account closed 2006) Type of Account - CREDIT CARD ACCOUNT Agreement entered pre-2007? - Yes 2004 Account assigned by Debt Purchaser? - Yes, by CABOT (bought from Egg 2009) Notice of Assignment? NOT SURE if I have a properly worded NOA: - had a letter from EGG (OC) late 2009 stating "We hereby give notice of the transfer of the debt due to us by you.. ..On XXX 2009 your account was sold to Cabot Financial.. .Any further communications and payments must therefore be addressed to Cabot...etc." -had a "Welcome to Cabot" letter stating similar (is that acceptable as an NOA) Default Notice from the original creditor? - YES 2006 but not sure if correct Have you been receiving statutory notices headed “Notice of Default sums” – at least once a year ? - YES BUT NOT EVERY YEAR (not in 2011 & 2012) Why did you cease payments? - BUSINESS IN TROUBLE SO SEVERE FINANCIAL DIFFICULTIES What was the date of your last payment? - to the OC May/June 2006 (can check exact date if needed) - to the DCA not sure either late 2008 or very early 2009 Was there a dispute with the original creditor that remains unresolved? Possibly - PPI charged when not asked for, this was refunded (2004) but can I use this? - CCA request to ARC in early 2009 recorded post, responded with a copy of a signed Egg Agreement but not the entire terms, very brief 2 pages - pretty sure I wrote back "account in dispute" as requested docs not supplied but what if I can't find letter/postal proof? Did you communicate any financial problems to the original creditor and make any attempt to enter into a debt managementicon plan? YES, I wrote to them saying that I had severe financial issues asking for account to be put on hold, that I had been in touch with National Debtline (gave them the ref number) and had been making recent smaller payments, They wrote back saying no can do. PPI - as mentioned above never requested/applied for but charged at the start of the account, I lodged a complaint and was refunded the 2 charges. Interest - The interest has been accruing since the account moved on and has grown from c£14k to almost £20k, surely this is wrong when there are no details as to how they have come by an interest rate, what terms do they rely on etc? Can anyone help me out with some advice please, am I on the right track with some of my thoughts above? Most urgently I'm not sure if i should send any further CCA requests to Cabot or WH or even Egg? Too late for a CPR31.14? If i can get the letters into the post tomorrow morning they will reach the DCA/OC by Monday morning recorded delivery which gives almost a week - but I need to send them by 12pm tomorrow so if anyone is out there please advise. Many thanks. GF2k

A few days ago a vitally important judgment was released concerning (once again) the matter of Liability Order 'costs'. This particular case was an appeal and was heard in the High Court but unlike in the recent case of the Reverend Nicolson, this particular local authority (East Northamptonshire District Council) had prepared a schedule of standardised costs of the type encouraged by Judge Andrews in the Reverend's case (paragraph 46). The claimant; Edward Williams represented himself and his appeal concerned (amongst other points) the following: One: That the summons served was an abuse of process because within it, it included an amount of costs (£75). He contended that the Regulations make no provision for the summons to include an amount by way of costs and that costs could only become due once, and if, a liability order were made Two: That including the amount of costs on the face of the summons was an abuse because it was an unlawful demand for money which the local authority had no right to make at that time. He contended that the costs were not due and owing at the date of the summons . He pointed out that the complaint on which the summons was based made no reference to the costs of £75. He submitted that it was an unfair manipulation of the Court process to include an amount for costs on the face of the summons, particularly when the only real summons cost was £3. He suggested that the recipient of a summons would be misled into believing that the costs of £75 were fixed and could not be debated or challenged. Three: He wanted to appeal the earlier decision regarding the sum of £75 and whether the costs had been 'reasonably incurred'. Most importantly; (and this is of significance to all local authorities who had been waiting for this case to be heard), Mr Williams considered that when compiling a schedule of costs, East Northamptonshire Council were wrong to include figures for: Information and Technology costs. Chip and Pin costs. Pension deficit funding.

Hello, War and piece - if you can't be bothered to read see the last two paragraphs. In June 2015 I bought a brand new Seat Ibiza from a Seat Dealer on PCP Finance (Dealer supplied Finance through VWFS). The main reason - I've always had older cars but I was fed up of the maintenance requirements and the time I had to take out for preventative repairs that older cars require. A new car was going to cost me more money, short term and long term; but the privilege of a new, reliable and care free vehicle outweighed any financial impact. This was clearly outlined to the salesman. Very early on in ownership I started experiencing issues with the car, please find a rough timeline below: 600 miles - Developed a light knocking sound 811 miles - x2 new front droplinks fitted under warranty. 1200 miles - Car started knocking again and suspension became very vocal. 1254 miles - x2 new steering arms fitted under warranty. On the drive home from having the steering arms replaced, The car felt 'off'. The steering wasn't as precise and seemed to tram line depending on the road surface and condition, the knocking had not been fixed. I made a phone call to the dealers expressing my concerns where I was advised to keep driving as the new steering arms will loosen up. 1600 miles - The symptoms were still the same and knocking remained. I rebooked the car in and asked for an inspection and alignment check. 1949 miles - Car was returned to the dealer and A Seat Master Tech test drove/inspected and found no issues, I was assured tracking had been fixed when the steering arms were replaced and had been double checked this time. Car only had a 1.6 mile test drive! 1983 miles - Car went to a local independent, I explained my issues and requested an inspection/second opinion only. Within 5 minutes on a Hunter alignment machine it was noted the front wheels were toe out. The car was not rectified (for the avoidance of doubt the car was untouched mechanically) and I have a print out as evidence of the issue. I was also advised that the suspension top mounts should be checked and is a known TPI on Seat Ibiza's. A detailed complaint was sent to the Dealer Complaint Manager via e-mail; stating I am ready to reject the car if they can't fix it. I was called by the service team asking to bring the car back in 2154 miles - The car was returned to the dealer where I was informed the Dealer does not have tracking equipment so the car was sent to an independent for tracking to be rectified. The car came back with a print out and the rear of the car was out of spec and was left out of spec. No other work was done by the dealer Although the cars steering feels better, the car still overreacts to road surface and has very vocal suspension. A further complaint was put into the Dealer via a reply to a customer satisfaction generic e-mail - I was advised the dealer principle would be in touch No response from the Dealer so I chased my complaint again I spoke to the Dealer Principle via phone call where I advised I have lost confidence in the car, in the dealer being able to rectify the issues and that I want to reject the car. We agreed the best option for all parties involved was to negotiate an amicable solution and get myself out of my current car and into an equivalent replacement - We discussed an equivalent spec Leon FR due to my lost faith in the Seat Ibiza. The Dealer Principle handed over to The Sales Manager and advised I'll receive a phone call with options. I received a phone call from Sales Manager stating he needed to get my Settlement Figure from VWFS before we can continue negotiations and to expect a phone call the following day. I called VWFS myself and obtained a settlement figure of £12,247.79 I failed to receive a phone call the followed day, so I chased The Sales Manager called me the next day and advised he values my car at £9,500 and as a result there is too much negative equity to begin negotiations and there was nothing more the Dealer can do. I advised I'll have to take this further with Seat UK and the Finance Company. Put in a complaint to VWFS and Seat HQ Phone then rang off the hook from the Dealer apologising and offered me deal where they took my current car, settled the finance then started a new agreement on a Leon FR. They planned on using my original £2,000 deposit on the Leon, however the Leon is an unsold but brand new MY15 model (current is MY16) Leon FR - subtle tech changes. I asked for 24 hours to think and was advised sales manager was off the following day but he would hand over to business manager Following day I accept the offer only to be told by the business manager I now need to put in another £2,000 deposit! Long story short - Brand new Seat on PCP finance, started with steering and suspension issues from 6 weeks / 600 miles. Dealers had the car back 4 times and the issue is still apparent. I'm negotiating with the dealer to get me out of this car and into another, but the offer the dealer has given me works out £2,112.81 more expensive, over a longer term for an older MY spec car than if I were to get my £2,000 Deposit back and go into a competitor dealer with a new order. I'd accept the deal without the extra £2,000 deposit and compromise by having the older MY car. But at this stage I feel I just want out. I want to hand the car back, cancel the finance and get my £2,000 deposit back to go elsewhere - I'm not interested in compensation or costs to date, just a clean slate. Help! What do I do and where do I go from here?

In 2015 there was a important and high profile Judicial Review regarding the serious matter of summons costs in relation to a Liability Order for council tax arrears. The case was that of the Reverend Paul Nicholson v Tottenham Magistrates and the London Borough of Haringey. In short, the court rules that Tottenham Magistrate's should not have allowed London Borough of Haringey to claim summons costs of £125 for each Liability Order given that the court did not have sufficient information before them to reach a proper judicial determination as to whether or not the costs claimed represented costs reasonably incurred by the Council in obtaining the liability order; 
The court found that Tottenham Magistrates Court erred in law by failing to make further inquiries into how the £125 was calculated. Accordingly, J Andrews ruled that the costs claimed were unlawful. Following Reverend Nicholson's court success, there have been a lot of developments. Firstly, Haringey's Council's external auditors; Grant Thornton reviewed the level of costs, and, unlike the position before the Judicial Review where Haringey charged a fee of £125, the auditors instructed the council to charge separate costs of £102 for a summons and to reduce the charge for a liability order issued by Tottenham Magistrates to £110 from £125. Most importantly, Haringey Council have refused to make Grant Thornton's report public. The judgement made clear that it related only to London Borough of Haringey and was specific only to Reverend Nicholson's case. Accordingly, whist it may allow him to claim a refund for any earlier years, it did not assist the many thousands (approx 20,000) of Haringey residents who had been overcharged every year since 2008. It was with this in mind, that the Reverend made a further application to the High Court. The basis of this new application being that he wished to challenge Grant Thornton's decision not to apply to the court for a declaration that an item of account is contrary to law under section 17(1) of the Audit Commission Act 1998. The Reverend considers that an audit is a public interest activity. Secondly, the Reverend wanted everyone who has been overcharged since 2008 to be repaid. His appeal was heard in the Divisional Court last Thursday (24th February). A copy of the press release and background to his dispute with Haringey Council is below. I will address the outcome of the appeal in a separate post. http://www.taxpayersagainstpoverty.o...paul-nicolson/

With over 3.5 million Liability Orders being issued each year for arrears of council tax, this new thread is of huge importance as the following proposal from the government will affect many thousands of council tax payers. For this reason I would hope that the moderators will allow this thread to remain on the main section of the forum for a few days before transferring it to the new 'bailiff discussion' section. Today the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) announced that they have issued a Consultation paper regarding proposals to extend the data sharing facility with HMRC to enable them to share data pertaining to higher income debtors. The purpose of which is to enable the local authority to make an attachment of earnings order against the debtors employer.

Hello to all CAG community! You have greatly helped me in the past (thx again Andyorch!) but unfortunately I have one more issue I'm hoping can be solved with your support. I used to live in Salford few years back, I've signed a tenancy agreement, moved in on 1st of April 07 and I moved out very shortly afterwards to another part of Salford, that was on the 20th of May. I've notified the council (letter from a Court prompted me to do so) on the 30/10/2007, bit late but there was a girl moving next day after me and I just assumed the agent will deal with all the paperwork. I also thought that by moving only a few streets away within the same area and paying a council tax for a new property will be fine. Anyway, all was quiet but in 2011 I've received a few letters. I'm attaching them (001.jpg, 002.jpg) I've been in contact with Council officer and have tried to battle with them so they can agree that I'm only responsible for paying council tax for the time period I really lived at that house which was 01/04/2007 until 20/05/2007 and not 21/05/2007 till 20/04/2008! I've exchanged quite a few emails throughout 2011 up to 01/2012 and last email I had from the officer was stating that they will ask my landlord to provide them a copy of my signed tenancy agreement. Since then everything went quiet again until a 10 days ago or so when I've received another letter saying there is a 14 days to pay before taking further actions. I'm attaching these letters (003.jpg, 004.jpg, 005.jpg). Basically they require £712.57 to be paid now and it is supported by a Magistrates Court Liability Order. I remember briefly letter sent to me from Magistrates 9 years ago but assumed Council wouldn't proceed with that after I've explained to them I've moved out of this particular property. Of course my documentation is quite poor as it was 9 years ago so feel bit hopeless. I've lost all my patience with them and thought I will try your advice as a last resort before paying it up. I have time untill 25th of February. Is there something that can be done about it? I've sent them an email asking for a Liability Order number so I can contact Court directly but don't know if given I only have a few days before deadline this will help. Thanks B

In 2015 there was a important and high profile Judicial Review regarding the serious matter of summons costs in relation to a Liability Order for council tax arrears. The case was that of the Reverend Paul Nicholson v Tottenham Magistrates and the London Borough of Haringey. In short, the court rules that Tottenham Magistrate's should not have allowed London Borough of Haringey to claim summons costs of £125 for each Liability Order given that the court did not have sufficient information before them to reach a proper judicial determination as to whether or not the costs claimed represented costs reasonably incurred by the Council in obtaining the liability order; 
The court found that Tottenham Magistrates Court erred in law by failing to make further inquiries into how the £125 was calculated. Accordingly, J Andrews ruled that the costs claimed were unlawful. Just before Christmas a further judgment was released in the case of another Judicial Review on an identical basis but this involving Highbury Corner Magistrates Court and London Borough of Camden. a copy of the Judgment is below: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2015/3788.html

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2015/12/keeper-liability-impact-assessment-due.html

Morning A friend of mine is having a multitude of issues with her local council mainly due to not disclosing changes of circumstances leading to overpayments of housing benefit and council tax benefit. This is just for the council tax. In the first instance, her local council did a recalculation of benefits after I got involved but for the years 2013-14 they have presented a bill for nearly £500. After some communication with them, they have stated that they will not be able to agree a payment arrangement until a liability order is in place. In this area, a LO adds another £75 to the bill. Surely they should be willing to enter negotiations before it gets anywhere near a court?? Another small(ish) issue was that the council sent her a final notice for her 2014-15 demanding full payment within 7 days except they posted the letter out via a third party and I got the letter with 2 days to spare. They threatened to get a liability order which would incur another £75 for a debt totalling less than £12. Surely they should not have done this! Complaint letter done and will be posted later

I am horrified to read this article: http://www.credittoday.co.uk/article/18022/online-news/government-calls-for-views-to-improve-council-tax-debt-recovery- In it, Barrie Minney, senior enforcement manager at Brighton & Hove City Council and chairman of the Local Authority Civil Enforcement Forum (LACEF) states the following: Given his position, this is a crassly idiotic statement. Every liability order issued should be registered as a CCJ. Is this man for real? Let's think through this. Last year, the generally accepted figure for the number of LO's issued for Council Tax is 3.5 million (3500000). The population of England and Wales is approximately 56 million. So you are talking about 6.25% of the population receiving a CCJ, making them uncreditworthy in just one year. Extrapolate that over say five years and the country will be in a position where about 3% of the population will have multiple CCJ's against them, about 15% will have a single CCJ against them - that's 18% of the population, round it up to 20%. If 20% of the population are unable to get normal credit, mortgages, to let a house (often involves a credit check nowadays), to access many forms of employment, there will be chaos. Barrie Minney, who holds a senior position at Brighton and Hove City Council, and Chairs LACEF thinks it's a good idea to bring the country to its knees. Why? Because he appears to want to see debtors suffer. He wants to see them really pay for hitting on hard times, being vulnerable, having mental health problems, losing their job, leaving university and learning the reality of living in 'the real world' - plenty of these will be students; the list is almost endless. This man appears to have lost his mind. Certainly if I were in charge of Brighton and Hove Council, I would be looking closely at this very public statement and asking whether this man was really the right one to be doing the job he does. Should he be chairing LACEF and trying to convince other local authorities this is a good idea? In my opinion he should not. We haven't even considered LO's issued for non-domestic rates here. Add those into the equation and the situation becomes even more crazy. Businesses unable to get credit, on which most of course rely, is not a good idea. In fact, in my opinion it ranks amongst the most bizarre statements I've read about regarding enforcement issues. This is madness beyond belief. Trade in the UK will die as even subprime credit struggles to keep up with demand from the majority of the population and the vast number of businesses who now have CCJ's, so cannot access normal lines of credit. Prices will rocket. Inflation will go sky high. Come on Barrie - you need to admit to a mistake here. Not only are you reinforcing the picture of a stereotypical bailiff who really gets pleasure in seeing anyone they can suffer, but you are single handedly trying to bring the country to its knees. Even more scary, given your position, is the fact your word counts for a lot. There is a possibility you might achieve this unless enough people speak up against what you are proposing.

Hi, in 2013 my local council were having "technical problems with their system" and kept losing my Self Employed accounts etc - I was self employed since May 2009 but trading at a loss so claiming Working Tax Credits and Council Tax Credits (Full) from 2010. In May 2013 I was issued a Court Summons so I called the council and she explained that it was issued wrongly due to the technical error and that I should just ignore it. (I can't prove the content of the conversation but I have an itemised phone bill that confirms I was on the phone to the council for over 30 mins)! In November whilst I was at my office, I returned home to find a "Notice Of Bailiffs Attendance"! I called the number on the letter and explained the situation and he said I need to take it up with Council Recovery. I called CR who said that they were not informed that I didn't owe any money and transferred me to Council Tax- they said that they were not informed by CT Benefits so transferred me again and CTB said that they knew nothing and nothing was on my record about me handing all of my paperwork etc (for which I have stamped receipts from the council)! So I went to the One Stop Shop in person with all of my paperwork in hand! By this time I had a breakdown so for the first time in my life I went unemployed as I couldn't focus on work! I also visited CAB several times over this but cutting a very very long story short I am paying the Bailiffs a ridiculous amount of fees (around £600) still for a "debt" that I didn't owe in the first place. Plus a couple of months ago I received another Court Summons for "Non-Payment of Council Tax" because they said I owed £14.60 for my 2014/15 bill (that I had paid a couple of months previously) and charged me another £75 court costs! I have the receipt for everything- when I phoned them they told me that they had knocked the money (£14.60) off this year 2015/16's bill!!! So I had a deja vous moment. Currently I am on the sick with Anxiety, depression, hypertension and the other week I collapsed and smashed my head open and got a concussion for which I am still seeking medical help for. My question is- what the hell can I do about this before it kills me??? CAB said there is nothing I can do (they said the only thing I can do is to get the council to intervene with the bailiffs, but I have a written statement from a council spokesperson that "they cannot intervene as the bailiffs are not acting on their behalf" (because I never owed them the money in the first place)!!! I have tried to keep as brief as possible but do have all receipts and correspondence etc!