Council Tax - Liablity Order

[Kennedy]

Good Evening!

 

I was wondering if anyone could offer some advice.

I'll start at the beginning.

 

Last year my partner lost his job and we were struggling to make ends meet.

 

I stupidly neglected a few bills and one of them was council tax.

 

They wrote to us recently wanting the full amount which is just over £1000.

 

I offered to pay them £20 on the first of each month until my partner found work again, after which we would obviously start to pay more.

 

The council refused this offer and obtained a liablity order.

 

The paperwork came through yesterday saying that we have until the 10th April to respond.

 

They haven't stated thier intentions after this period but it included a budget sheet which the letter states we have to fill in by law or risk a fine of £500.

 

Does this mean they are going down the attachment of earnings route?

 

The letter does also mention baliffs.

 

While all this has been going on we've kept up with the £20 a month and always made sure to pay it on the 1st of each month.

 

Does anyone have any advice?

 

I've heard when they do attachment of earnings, they can ask for a ridiculous amount which we'd have no control over.

 

So would it be best to carry on paying what we've been paying and risk the £500 fine by not sending them the budget sheet?

 

or would it be best to call the council and explain that we understand that we're liable for the debt

and propose the payment plan again?

 

Or just wait until the bailiff stage, and just continue to pay the council directly.

 

Many Thanks!

[ploddertom]

Moved to Bailiff Forum

[outlawla]

If you don't mind naming the council, then it might be possible to take a "controlled risk approach" to the fine.

 

I believe it's policy for some councils to enforce this fine and others not to. Some councils submit this information in their annual revenue returns.

[dx100uk]

never heard of a £500 fine for not doing an I/E.

 

dx

[Kennedy]

Thanks for the replies guys! The council is question is Leeds. If it helps anyone, the letter states, and I quote:

 

'You are now under a legal duty to provide the information requested on the enclosed form. If you don't supply this information Leeds Magistrates Court can fine you up to £500. If you supply false information they can fine you up to £1000'

 

It goes on to state that we have to provide all the info reuested no later than 10/4/13 even if a payment arrangement has been agreed. At the bottom it says in bold that if we don't return the form or pay the amount by 10/4/13 a Certified Bailiff will be sent to the collect the outstanding money.

 

The letter also came with the aforementioned 'Council Tax Financial Information Form' which reiterates at the top that the law says I must fill in the form and return it within 14 days.

[outlawla]

Look at this spreadsheet under Column 58, Row 92 (2010-11).

 

Criminal prosecutions pursued for Non-return of Requests of Earnings Information

 

NO

 

2011-12 says "NO" also.

 

Would you risk it?

[ploddertom]

Are you working? They are going from this http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1992/613/regulation/36/made also if an AoE is made then the monies they can take are set on a sliding scale http://www.wirral.gov.uk/my-services/advice-and-benefits/council-tax/summons-and-liability-orders/attachment-earnings-order

[ploddertom]

have you read http://www.leeds.gov.uk/residents/Pages/Council-tax-recovery.aspx

[Kennedy]

So do you think the best way to proceed with filling in the financial information sheet? perhaps it might be worth giving them a call to clarify how they intend to proceed? I'm guessing in the long run, attachment of earnings is better than having a bailiff banging on the door. Has anyone had any experience of offering another payment plan at this stage or, as far as the council is concerned, is it past that stage?

[outlawla]

I think you have to read between the lines here, but it would be worth clarifying the position with the council. See if you can get the authority to commit itself and give a definitive answer to whether or not it is policy for them to prosecute for not supplying information. Unfortunately as these days it's accepted that those in public office lie to the public, it's unlikely they will tell the truth.

 

It seems from its website, Leeds City council use the threat of a criminal record to coerce payment, but in practice it's likely they'd use non-compliance to supply earnings information as a green light to send in bailiffs.

 

You are at an advantage if they choose bailiffs to enforce the debt, because there's no law requiring you speak to or open the door to bailiffs – you do not have to deal with them. If you can prevent them from levying goods their fees and charges are unenforceable. If you deny them access to your home, levying a vehicle is their best hope of succeeding with extorting money, so is of primary importance to make sure this doesn't happen.

 

As a warning, they could probably take money through attachment of earnings/benefits without you supplying information if they're likely to have employer or other details.

 

If you carry on paying as you are and can supply proof, i.e., bank statements, the court would not/unlikely consider committal.

 

Some options, but you have to weigh up the risks.

Edited April 1, 2013 by outlawla

[tomtubby]

Given that so many local authorities are "pleading poverty" I have heard that some of them are indeed issuing "fines" to council tax payers who refuse to provide the financial info.

 

The problem with submitting the info is that the council can ( and indeed do) use the information to determine whether to apply for an Attachment of Earnings and thereby get the debt paid a lot quicker by having deductions made from your salary.

 

As an example, in 2010 local authorities issued 2.1 million Liability Orders. Of these, only 1.3 million were sent to bailiffs. 350,000 had deductions from benefits, 2,900 had charging orders against their homes and 254,000 were subjected to attachments of earnings.