Jump to content


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3326 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Here is one from the Daily Post in North Wales where a widow of 81 has ended up with a liability order over a mix up. The council didn't get their £70 costs awarded, but got their LO, Saying it had to go before the court as once applied for they have to go to court? I thought they could withdraw the action if the account was settled. hopefully this can be clarified.

I expect the incompetents in Denbighshire will send Excel Enforcement in, soon, by mistake of course?

 

http://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/2012/06/13/north-wales-gran-81-in-court-over-56-late-council-tax-payment-which-she-paid-55578-31170660/

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

There has to be something more behind this reluctance to put things right than just intransigence. There has to be.

 

Orders handed down from central government? A threat to executive perks or something?

 

The council can apply to the Magistrates' court to quash a Liability Order, so preventing one going to court should be much easier and the preferred option if they learned beforehand that it was unnecessary.

 

I wonder why the chairman of the bench threw out the costs, but granted the liability order. It seems Magistrates don't have much discretion here as clearly the order wouldn't have been granted either.

Edited by outlawla
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the magistrate granted the order as maybe he thought he had to, the fact that the debt was discharged seems to matter not one jot, so the mealy mouthed people in Cyngor Sir Dinbych, can set Excel on the poor woman when they mess up again. these are as incompetent as NELC if this is anything to go by. heaven help people who lose a job under the new Universal Credit, as Council Tax benefit is to be handled in a central location, and removed from councils, who no doubt will go for liability orders for all benefit claimants to hedge their bets.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Technically the Council did nothing wrong and the Magistrate had to follow due process. Morally they did everything wrong and should hang their heads in shame, to make it worthwhile they had to have their costs, shame the elderly lady did not ask for her own costs.

Please consider making a small donation to help keep this site running

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

What rights do people have to go back to a magistrate to challenge and for consideration of their own costs, when any mistake had been made with a LO ? Surely there must be some form of process for this. This is particularly important given the alleged way councils apply for LO's in bulk and where people have not apparently been given the right to challenge. I may be mistaken, but I have read several posts, where it appears whole lists of LO's have just been rubber stamped by magistrates. In one case, the council had given the wrong details, as to which magistrates court dealt with it.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Technically the Council did nothing wrong and the Magistrate had to follow due process. Morally they did everything wrong and should hang their heads in shame, to make it worthwhile they had to have their costs, shame the elderly lady did not ask for her own costs.

 

You could liken the council's actions to a scenario where a motorist knocks someone down and refuses to give assistance. When quizzed why no help was offered, the motorist responds by saying "the pedestrian had no right of way and was therefore in the wrong"

 

In other words there's just something missing....

Edited by outlawla
Link to post
Share on other sites

Technically the Council did nothing wrong and the Magistrate had to follow due process. Morally they did everything wrong and should hang their heads in shame, to make it worthwhile they had to have their costs, shame the elderly lady did not ask for her own costs.

 

If a debt is discharged before the court date does the magistrate have to grant the Lo or could he refuse to grant it? If it was a CCJ there would be no grounds to grant ome even by default if the debt didn't exist any more.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have read somewhere (I cannot remember where) that in one case featuring a doughty octogenarian the Magistrate said in the court proceeding that they (the Magistrate) was under contract to issue the LOs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have read somewhere (I cannot remember where) that in one case featuring a doughty octogenarian the Magistrate said in the court proceeding that they (the Magistrate) was under contract to issue the LOs.

If they are "Under contract" that makes a mockery out of due process ergo, debt paid so doesn't exist anymore, so no ground for council to carry on and seek the Lo, but magistrate grants it anyway, as there is a contract between HMCS and a council. This is pernicious and wrong footed legislation.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

heaven help people who lose a job under the new Universal Credit, as Council Tax benefit is to be handled in a central location, and removed from councils, who no doubt will go for liability orders for all benefit claimants to hedge their bets.

 

Actually as part of the localism bill CT benefit it is envisaged will become Council Tax Support in 2013 and will be the only thing administered by the Council under UC.

 

Since there will be a 10% reduction in current funding and 50% + will be pensioners who are not liable, the burden then falls on those low paid on JSA & ESA.

 

So enforcement will be on quite low amounts monetary wise - maybe they're just practicing?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually as part of the localism bill CT benefit it is envisaged will become Council Tax Support in 2013 and will be the only thing administered by the Council under UC.

 

Since there will be a 10% reduction in current funding and 50% + will be pensioners who are not liable, the burden then falls on those low paid on JSA & ESA.

 

So enforcement will be on quite low amounts monetary wise - maybe they're just practicing?

I went to a seminar on UC, and apparently the council tax benefit or it's equivalent will be centralised and not administered by councils as at present. Usual carp then misinformation and muppetry.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...