Summons - how can I get my own back on them?

[Conniff]

Thanks for your input, Conniff.

 

Looks like I will have to show the bill is wrong!

 

Any idea if I can represent my girlfriend in court? She may be unable to attend. I don't want to win and then find she is liable!

 

I believe but hope I am wrong, that the liability order will go ahead. What you need to do is it send a sar (cost a tenner) and get back everything they have and really scrutinise it looking for errors they have made.

 

They also must send a complete file, so any thing they have done wrong will show up as they couldn't possibly go through that lot making changes which the computer probably wouldn't let do them either.

 

Was the summons applied for the day before the 7 days, that sort of thing.

[militantconsumer]

What you need to do is it send a sar (cost a tenner) and get back everything they have and really scrutinise it looking for errors they have made.

 

I sent it last week (by special delivery) and told them I wanted it all back before the hearing so that I can have a fair trial!

 

Now, if they were complying with this Human Rights thing that I keep going on about, they would probably delay the case for me (because Councils being Councils, they won't be able to return my SAR so quickly, or even in 40 days for that matter!)

 

However, I strongly suspect that they won't even have opened my letter yet!

[Conniff]

Thanks for your input, Conniff.

 

Looks like I will have to show the bill is wrong!

 

Any idea if I can represent my girlfriend in court? She may be unable to attend. I don't want to win and then find she is liable!

 

It's unlikely that there will be time to present a case against at the liability hearing unless you have told the council you will be appearing in person and they can ask for and are allowed extra time.

[Conniff]

I sent it last week (by special delivery) and told them I wanted it all back before the hearing so that I can have a fair trial!

 

Now, if they were complying with this Human Rights thing that I keep going on about, they would probably delay the case for me (because Councils being Councils, they won't be able to return my SAR so quickly, or even in 40 days for that matter!)

 

However, I strongly suspect that they won't even have opened my letter yet!

 

Have you checked on the Royal Mail site to see if it has been delivered?

Check if your cheque or postal order has been cashed yet.

 

The most important thing when you get it back is to cross reference all the dates and times.

[militantconsumer]

It's unlikely that there will be time to present a case against at the liability hearing unless you have told the council you will be appearing in person and they can ask for and are allowed extra time.

 

I have told the Council verbally that I will be coming, and they have referred to this fact in the letter that they emailed to me yesterday.

 

Perhaps I am missing something here, but how can you be summonsed to appear in court, but then be told that there is no time to hear your defence, so be found guilty anyway?!

[militantconsumer]

Right then, I've just come back from casting my vote in these extraordinary political times, and I'm about to bike down to the magistrates court for the hearing.

 

I'm dressed in my normal work clothes - dark shoes, a dark suit and a business shirt (no tie).

 

I've collated all the relevant paperwork and evidence into a neatly organised file, I've written out my arguments, and I've drawn up a one page plan so that I don't forget anything.

 

I'm feeling quite nervous because it will be my first time in court, and of course it's normal to fear the unknown - but I'm also quite excited about the challenge.

 

Win or lose (and it's more likely to be lose from what I gather) I will post a full report onto this thread so hopefully others can benefit from my experience.

 

I asked my girlfriend this morning what's the worst that can happen. She replied "You could go to jail for contempt of court" - LOL!!!

 

Yes, I will try to remain calm, whatever my personal views about the way the Council have behaved in this matter.

 

Wish me luck, fellow CAGgers.

 

As they say - nothing ventured, nothing gained.

[Jamstar]

Good luck mate and all the best.

 

Let us know how you get on.

[Conniff]

I certainly do wish you luck and will look forward to your report.

[militantconsumer]

Here is my report - sorry it's a bit long, but hope you find it interesting

 

I arrived at the Magistrates Court about 30 minutes early. After going through airport style security I was asked why I was there, and then directed to the 2nd floor for Council Tax.

 

On the 2nd floor a Mr “J” from the Council took my name. He was booking everybody in so that they knew who was and was not attending.

 

Everyone was invited to meeting rooms to “do deals” with Council staff so that their hearing did not go ahead. Some people came out looking happy and saying things like “I’ve won”, before leaving the building. What they had agreed to, and whether or not it included the £68 costs, I don’t know.

 

One guy I spoke to told me that he had sold his house two years ago but was still being chased for the current year’s Tax. I know he later did a deal, but I don’t know what it was. I guess the Council really had the advantage at this point, because none of the people who had turned up knew what was coming next, or what their rights were.

 

I was ushered into a room to meet Mr “D” – the guy from the Council who puts their case to the magistrates at the court hearings. He simply told me the time my case was likely to be heard and the room number where it was taking place. I guess he must have had me down as a troublemaker and wanted to size me up before the hearing.

 

One of the Council staff told me that the Court would not let any cases start until the Council had spoken to everybody there – I guess they didn’t want to waste the Court’s time on matters that should have already been resolved.

 

By this point I would say that at least 50 people had arrived. They were either sitting about waiting, they had gone into the meeting rooms, or they were chatting to their fellow accused.

 

I was one of the most smartly dressed people there. Most were either students, mothers with babies, foreigners or ethnic minorities, and one lady was in a wheelchair. I have to say that at this point I felt slightly ashamed of the society that we live in, as it seemed like members of the lowest socio-economic groups had all been rounded up by the Government to pay their debts plus a £68 surcharge that they could probably not afford.

[militantconsumer]

At this point I realised that the cases were all going to be heard, not on the 2nd floor where everybody had been sent, but on the 3rd floor. I couldn’t help feeling that some kind of deliberate policy was being used here to discourage people from getting as far as the courtroom – even the 2nd floor lift button was marked as “down only”!

 

I decided to go upstairs and see what was happening, and I found that the Council Tax cases were scheduled for 30 minutes later than we had all been told.

 

I obtained permission from the usher to go into the Court room (most cases are actually publicly accessible anyway). This was at a break between cases, so I sat at the back on my own. The magistrate asked me what I was doing there and I said that I was there for Council Tax but the usher had said that I could sit in for the earlier cases. I was told I would have a long wait!

 

The magistrate immediately told me off for drinking from my water bottle, although she said that I could keep it with me. She said “Drinking is not permitted in the Court - I thought you would have worked that out”. I looked down at the jug of water and glass on her table, looked back up, and said “I’m very sorry”, as humbly as I could!

[militantconsumer]

Let me describe the Court room to you.

 

It was a modern building inside and room was rectangular, maybe 15 metres in width by 30 metres from front to back. At the far end sat three Magistrates. They were on a raised platform, like a kind of stage, and below them was the Clerk, who dealt with administrative matters and advised them on technical legal points. Behind them on the wall was a big crest, just like the one on the front of the Times newspaper. There were then rows of chairs filling the rest of the room, and some seats on the two sides facing inwards. There was also a big glass enclosure on one side, which I think was the dock, though I didn’t see it being used.

 

I sat through the first case, a couple who had 9 children and who were accused of not sending one of them to school for a long period of time. The mother explained how the girl was frightened of school and the local authorities had done nothing to help her. The Magistrates retired for a good 15 minutes to discuss the case, then came back with their decision. The parents were fined £290 each – they didn’t look like they had £290 to me.

 

I then moved outside while I waited for the Council Tax cases to come up. The waiting area was like any waiting room anywhere (hospital, airport, etc.) except that there were lots of security guards, a few policemen, and some shady looking characters.

 

The security guards seemed fascinated about why I was there, and one of them told me how much she admired me for coming along to stand up for myself against the Council!

Edited June 4, 2009 by militantconsumer

[militantconsumer]

By the time the Council Tax hearing came up – about 3 hours later than it was meant to happen – there were only 4 people left who wanted to speak in court.

 

First was a guy called Mr “H”. I had already met him outside and he had told me that he comes every year to make a political point because he is so angry at all the money being wasted by the Council.

 

The Clerk started by explaining how the Magistrates had no option but to obey the will of Parliament by granting liability orders over Council Tax disputes, almost whatever the circumstances. She would later keep repeating this, almost by way of an apology for the miscarriages of justice that she could see happening on a regular basis.

 

Mr “H” stood up and gave a speech about how much money the Council had wasted in investments in Icelandic banks, self-serving publicity leaflets, and a few other local scandals. He had all the facts and figures and it was quite impressive, albeit irrelevant. The Magistrates granted the liability order against him for the full amount, at which point he produced a cheque from his wallet, handed it to Mr “D” from the Council, and told him to spend it on subsidising his gold-plated, tax-payer-subsidised pension scheme!

Edited June 4, 2009 by militantconsumer

[militantconsumer]

I was up next and I started by asking if I could also represent my girlfriend at the same time. I was told no, she could only raise points if she attended court or wrote a letter. We had already anticipated that, so I had some letters with me. I was told to produce them when we came to the cases of people who hadn’t turned up.

 

Mr “D” presented the Council’s case against me – just a list of facts, figures and dates, plus he mentioned the letter that they had sent me two days before the hearing.

 

I said that I had written down my arguments and asked for permission to read them out – as it was my first time in court and wanted to make sure that I didn’t forget anything.

 

Permission was granted, and this is what I said:-

 

• I’m very disappointed to have to appear in court today as I believe that XXXX Council has acted completely unreasonably in issuing a summons against me.
  

• They’ve made no attempt to sort things out amicably – they have my email address and phone number but resorted to completely unnecessary legal action.
  

• To send just one reminder notice to two people seems, to any reasonable layperson, a totally unfair level of warning that proceedings are going to be started and additional costs incurred.
  

• Mr “D” has admitted to me that the costs incurred by the Council in issuing this summons are just £3.00 – so by charging £68.00 they have made a profit of over 2,000%.
  

• I believe that the £68.00 charge has no justifiable basis whatsoever, and I will be using the Freedom of Information Act to find out how it has been calculated (if at all) and how much money the XXXX Council have made out of this practice.
  

• There appears to be a systematic and deliberate policy of minimal enforcement, swiftly followed by legal action. This operates in direct contrast to the requirements of the rest of the legal system, where disputes should be settled out of court wherever possible.
  

• I can only conclude that XXXX Council is treating court hearings as nothing more than a money-making exercise – a tax on the poor and the forgetful
  

• I would now like to point out that, under article 6 of the European Declaration of Human Rights, which must be incorporated into UK Law, every defendant in a criminal trial is entitled to certain inalienable rights (and Council Tax proceedings are considered a criminal matter for these purposes).
  

[The Clerk then interrupted me to state that this was a civil, rather than a criminal case, and I replied that the European legislation considered that it was considered criminal, partly because you can go to prison for it. The Magistrate told me that I couldn’t go to prison today, and I said I was very pleased to hear it, before continuing with my speech:-]

 

• The right to be presumed innocent until you have been proved to be guilty – not a rubber stamping exercise of a Council computer printout
  

• The right to legal assistance – which [my girlfriend] cannot afford and has not been given the opportunity to take up.
  

• The right to question the main witnesses against you and to call witnesses of your own – we have both been denied that
  

• The right to adequate time to prepare your defence – which should mean no new evidence at the last moment – however the Council have written me a letter full of calculations, and this was dated only two days ago (and came through my letterbox this morning). It should also mean complying with my subject access request made last week under the Data Protection Act - which has been ignored.
  

• Now, of course I realise that these concerns are not going to be addressed here, and that I may need to take my case to a higher court, and I will therefore turn my attention to matters which CAN be dealt with today.
  

I then stated that I had made two payments of £XX on a specific date in October last year, but the Council had claimed I only made one, according to an email they had sent me 5 days later. I showed the Magistrate a copy bank statement and a printout of an email from the Council. (I also had information to prove that my bank was making “faster payments” at this time, but I didn’t need to show this).

 

There was a lot of discussion about whether or not something in the prior year was relevant to the liability order now being applied for. I said that it was because they actually owed me money from 08/09, yet their reminder had stated that I owed them £18.03. Mr “D” kept saying that I hadn’t made any payments at all on 09/10 and so the liability order should be granted.

 

There was also a lot of discussion about the £68 figure.

 

The Magistrates went off to deliberate for about 10 minutes. When they returned, they granted the liability order against me for the full 09/10 balance PLUS the £68 of costs. They did NOT include the £18.03 and they also said that I should go through the Council’s appeal process (which I had never heard of).

 

This hardly seemed fair as they had obviously accepted that the amount claimed on the bill and in the reminder was potentially wrong in total – otherwise the liability order that they granted would have included the £18.03 from 08/09. Yet, because there was no challenge to the element relating to the 09/10 year, they still granted the liability order against me for that part, plus they awarded ALL of the £68 in costs against me as well.

 

In fairness to the Magistrates, their hands really did seem to be legally tied on this, as they had explained at the beginning of the hearing.

Edited June 4, 2009 by militantconsumer

[militantconsumer]

Third up was A Mr “B”, who had long standing arguments with the Council going back 10 years. He had bought a derelict house and told the council he was not liable to Council Tax on it because it was not being lived in. They had sent a bill anyway, then a reminder and finally a summons, all to the derelict house (which didn’t even have a letter box). So they had obtained a liability order, then issued a statutory demand against him and tried to make him bankrupt for the sake of £500.

That was all in the past, but in the current year the house was finally renovated and he was planning to rent it out later in the year. He was assessed for full Council Tax for the whole year and had now received a summons. He claimed that he had sent a letter to the Council pointing out their error prior to the summons, but the Council denied this in Court. He also tried to show a newspaper article about how the Council were meant to be helping people renovate empty houses, not prosecuting them, but he wasn’t allowed to talk about this because it wasn’t considered relevant to his case.

The full liability order was granted against him.

[militantconsumer]

Lastly it was the turn of a Miss “T”. The Council had a assessed her for Council Tax on a house that she claimed she had sold last year. Mr “D” from the Council had a printout from a Land Registry website to prove she still owned it.

 

But when Miss “T” said she could prove she had sold it, and the Land Registry must have made a mistake, the Council tried to withdraw the case, saying she would have to write to them with the details.

 

Miss “T” then produced a document and said the case could be settled immediately. The Magistrates accepted this and stated that the liability order should not be granted. Miss “T” was offered costs against the Council, but she declined, saying she was just pleased to see the end of the matter.

[militantconsumer]

Finally we moved onto the list of people who had not turned up, some of whom had written letters to defend themselves. Some cases seemed to be in the hands of solicitors, and there was much hushed discussion and passing around of paperwork.

 

My girlfriend was made jointly and severally liable for the same liability order as me, as her letter made the same arguments as I had about the two payments last year.

 

And then came the most interesting part from my point of view. After reviewing documents submitted by Mr “D”, the Magistrates granted a total of 2,034 liability orders. Assuming each of these had the same £68 of costs added, that means that the Council obtained £138,312 out of today’s hearing.

 

With £3 as the actual costs incurred, that means that the Council made a profit of £132,210. And this was mostly at the expense of the poorest local residents - from what I could gather.

 

I was so outraged that I stood up and asked if the Council had really made a £130k profit out of today’s hearing. Of course, I was told that this was a question that should be asked at another time and place!

[militantconsumer]

So, in summary, I had only a tiny and partial victory in that I am £18 better off than I was this morning. But I lost the case, and I still have to pay the £68 in addition to my 09/10 Council Tax. And they have the liability order to back them up.

 

But I also had a fascinating day out, and it was my first experience of appearing in court.

 

It certainly hasn’t dulled my desire to get my own back on the Council over this – if anything, their arrogance and moral bankruptcy has hardened my resolve. And, from a political view, I feel more strongly than before that there is something seriously immoral about the way Council Tax is being collected, and I intend to do something about it.

 

I would recommend that anybody in this situation goes along to the hearing.

 

You have nothing to lose, because by this point you have already incurred the costs.

 

It took the Magistrates over an hour to hear 4 Council Tax cases, but over 2,000 people decided not to have their day in Court.

 

If we all stood up to be counted, they simply wouldn’t be able to do this at all.

Edited June 4, 2009 by militantconsumer

[ss002d6252]

Assuming each of these had the same £68 of costs added, that means that the Council obtained £138,312 out of today’s hearing.[/font][/size]

 

With £3 as the actual costs incurred, that means that the Council made a profit of £132,210. And this was mostly at the expense of the poorest local residents - from what I could gather.

 

I was so outraged that I stood up and asked if the Council had really made a £130k profit out of today’s hearing. Of course, I was told that this was a question that should be asked at another time and place!

 

Not really - you have to factor in how much has been spent to bill and attempt to recover the money (and how much will be spent on future attempts to collect the money after the Liability Order has been granted for those who still don't pay).

[militantconsumer]

Not really - you have to factor in how much has been spent to bill and attempt to recover the money (and how much will be spent on future attempts to collect the money after the Liability Order has been granted for those who still don't pay).

 

This is why I intend to find out how the figure has been calculated.

 

The costs of sending the original bill are hardly legal "costs" because they are the same for both payers and non-payers.

 

And "future attempts to collect the money" would bring additional costs anyway - e.g. bailiffs fees.

 

What annoys me is that I am (presumably) paying for the overheads of running the department that carries out enforcement of council tax. This includes the costs of giving Council staff 30 days holiday and a final salary pension scheme - along with all the other inefficiences.

 

If council tax was abolished then I wonder how much the basic rate of income tax would have to be increased by to cover the shortfall. Less than 1% I should think, especially when you consider how many Council workers you could sack as a result, and what you could do with the prime real estate where they work.

 

In the meantime I just want to be treated fairly - and, as I stated earlier in my thread, I don't think it's fair to issue proceedings on two people after just one reminder sent addressed to both of them.

 

The Council are clearly abusing the powers that they have under Council Tax Law to maximise profit at the expense of the taxpayer.

 

And in my opinion they should stop doing it.

[Conniff]

Not really - you have to factor in how much has been spent to bill and attempt to recover the money (and how much will be spent on future attempts to collect the money after the Liability Order has been granted for those who still don't pay).

 

In answer to that, the stamps on no more than three letters - 2 reminders and a final demand.

Secondly nothing, the bailiff charges the customer not the council.

[Conniff]

This is why I intend to find out how the figure has been calculated.

 

The costs of sending the original bill are hardly legal "costs" because they are the same for both payers and non-payers.

 

And "future attempts to collect the money" would bring additional costs anyway - e.g. bailiffs fees.

 

What annoys me is that I am (presumably) paying for the overheads of running the department that carries out enforcement of council tax. This includes the costs of giving Council staff 30 days holiday and a final salary pension scheme - along with all the other inefficiences.

 

If council tax was abolished then I wonder how much the basic rate of income tax would have to be increased by to cover the shortfall. Less than 1% I should think, especially when you consider how many Council workers you could sack as a result, and what you could do with the prime real estate where they work.

 

In the meantime I just want to be treated fairly - and, as I stated earlier in my thread, I don't think it's fair to issue proceedings on two people after just one reminder sent addressed to both of them.

 

The Council are clearly abusing the powers that they have under Council Tax Law to maximise profit at the expense of the taxpayer.

 

And in my opinion they should stop doing it.

 

Would it surprise you if I told you that the leader of the council in the biggest city in Devon draws a salary of £167,397 whereas the Prime Minister draws £130,959? Can that be right?

 

This is one of the reasons they give no leaway or have no interest whatsoever in your ability to pay.

I wouldn't be surprised if you told a council you couldn't afford to pay this month because you had a funeral to pay for they sent a letter saying 'not our problem, leave them out the back and bury them later'.

[ss002d6252]

'In answer to that, the stamps on no more than three letters - 2 reminders and a final demand.

Secondly nothing, the bailiff charges the customer not the council.'

 

 

For not costing anything we have to put numerous man hours in to dealing with the resultant queries, paperwork etc that arise from recovery cases, the court attendance costs etc all add up across the year.

 

The costs charged in our area are based on the cost of recovery divided by the L/O's / Summons issued so the costs is realistic - around £40 for each.

 

Cases are often taking 5 or 6 + man hours to investigate even at the Summons stage when full break downs are needed ,often going back years, because someone who hasn't been bothered to pay wants all the relevant information. 5-6 hrs of time is around £60 just for the summons + the normal admin costs incurred in issuing it.

 

If the cost isn't charged to the non-payer then those who do pay have to foot the bill for something they have no responsibility for.

[Conniff]

If your answering to justify the councils charge then all I can say is - total crap.

If what you say were true, it just shows what rubbish the council hires to administer this department.

[militantconsumer]

I think there is a danger that this thread could turn into a political debate because a lot of people (myself included) have strong feelings about perceived public sector waste and inefficiencies.

 

On the other hand, "ss002d6252" obviously works for a council and perhaps this is why he/she has used the phrase "someone who hasn't been bothered to pay", which I can imagine is going to wind some people up.

 

Of course, I am grateful for the input of somebody who is in the know.

 

However, I have written a long report about how the day went, and included a lot of comments about the (im)morality of the way that my local council have behaved.

 

But all that "ss002d6252" can do is defend councils because of the amount of time that they have to spend investigating problems - ignoring what you could call the "human" side of the situation.

 

I'm sorry to say that this attitude is symptomatic of what I and others have encountered in dealing with council employees - ignore the human side of the problems (often caused by councils themselves) and just robotically continue making unreasonable demands on the taxpayer.

 

I am fortunate enough to be able to afford to pay my council tax, even if I refuse to set up a direct debit and as a result sometimes forget to pay on time. Thousands of others have real difficulties (not just that they haven't "bothered to pay"). All of these people have been forced to pay a £68 to keep council employees in their cosy employment.

 

The only reason that there are so many summons is because councils know that the law is on their side as there is virtually no defence available to the taxpayer. (under UK law, not European law).

 

That cannot be right, and I am coming round to thinking that the only way to change it will be to campaign on the issue. Watch this space!

[militantconsumer]

Mission accomplished?